Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: What is "present time" in physics? Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 22:46:10 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 99 Message-ID: <66D945A2.176@ix.netcom.com> References: Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2024 07:46:01 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="27885926818ac3163126be92b5434cd2"; logging-data="253488"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1epiqlReRpnkz0qvukl/lcyrmVuqeeOE=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:wMan6n1AqNkax1M6pSuq3Vc//qU= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240905-0, 09/04/2024), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:656781 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.