Instead, experiments show that: Information takes time to travel. Different observers disagree about simultaneity. Space and time are linked together into spacetime. Einstein's relativity is the mathematical description of a universe with a finite maximum signal speed.

"Where I would draw a distinction is that my work is not primarily about redefining simultaneity. Instead, it studies how physical states deform inside a Hilbert-space geometry." Does matter care if you describe something in Hilbert-space or whatever other model? No. You comment on my post with interesting models and mathematics descriptions, but those single protons have no math theory to apply. Thus as long as you can show that your mathematical framework gives you a good prediction of what you describe such that it matches the observations, then it can be used. However, there is no particle in Hilbert space. There is no particle that calculates vectors. The relativistic simultaneity emerges from the fact that all is based on light speed propagation. Since that holds to dimensions below a proton, the medium that propagates has to be more fine grained than the smallest particles. We could call that the Aether. The properties of such aether are that it propagates a state of imbalance with light speed throughout its volume. I don't go in deeper detail of what exactly the properties of that aether needs to be. But, the reality is not a mathematical construct. The mathematical constructs are the description of the reality up to some abstraction. All your conjecture point to math constructs. So, they do not represent reality, they describe it.

I have always viewed light as the explorer, and they report to someone. someone records and someone keeps a record. but how is still the exact question. Relations abound on mainfolds i believe. here is an AI response to what i have as well-- -You are saying that a particle is not fundamentally a collection of independently existing pieces. The particle is one physical object occupying a finite volume, and the "present" state of that object is a level of simultaneity. Every point within that volume belongs to the same physical instant of the particle. If one region were further into the future or further into the past than another region, then we would no longer be describing a single particle state but rather different temporal versions of that particle. In that picture, causal connectivity across the particle volume is established through the light-cone structure. Consequently, the simultaneity structure of the particle is tied directly to the propagation speed governing those causal relations. If the effective light-cone structure changes, then the set of spacetime events that constitute the particle's present state changes as well. I agree that Special Relativity treats simultaneity as physically meaningful within a chosen inertial frame, and that this issue does not disappear simply because we move to scales far below the proton. Where I would draw a distinction is that my work is not primarily about redefining simultaneity. Instead, it studies how physical states deform inside a Hilbert-space geometry. In the Grassmannian formulation, a particle state is represented by a spectral projector Π rather than by a collection of localized spatial points. The tangent vectors are not motions of material pieces inside the particle. They are infinitesimal deformations of the spectral subspace itself. What is interesting is that the mathematics produces a very similar conclusion to the one you are emphasizing: The admissible tangent directions are purely off-diagonal across the spectral gap, V=(0XX∗0),V= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & X\\ X^\ast & 0 \end{pmatrix},V=(0X∗​X0​), so there are no intrinsic deformations that occur entirely within either spectral sector. In other words, the geometry only responds to transitions between complementary sectors. Internal motions inside a sector do not contribute to the intrinsic Grassmannian metric. That is conceptually close to your statement that the particle must be treated as a single coherent object rather than as independently evolving pieces. The difference is that your argument is formulated in spacetime through simultaneity and light-cone structure, whereas mine is formulated spectrally through projector geometry and virtual cross-gap transitions. So I would say the question becomes: Is the relativistic simultaneity structure itself emergent from a deeper spectral coherence condition? If so, then the level of simultaneity you describe may not be a primitive spacetime object at all, but a macroscopic manifestation of an underlying spectral projector that remains globally coherent under admissible deformations. Also I try to show a conjecture to see if light would be a valid WHERE to start from. I used to think memory was first but well i think they have more in common than meets the eye, literally. Conjecture: The Asymmetric Primitive of the Printed CircuitLet \(\mathcal{H}\) be an \(n\)-dimensional multi-channel representation space governed by a background-free, autonomous relational network [1.4]. We define the primary informational primitive not as the fluid transmission current (light), but as the rigid, trace-normalized historical record left behind by that transmission—the electron trace matrix \(\mathbf{\Pi }_{k}\) [1.4].We conjecture that light cannot function as a stable, primary Lagrangian primitive because it represents a purely horizontal parameter velocity operator \(\mathbf{\Omega }\) rather than an invariant structural container.To attempt to build a foundational Lagrangian using light as the primary coordinate means trying to calculate propagation delays without an existing substrate trace to delay on. It forces an engineering paradox: you are forced to treat a transient, non-local current as a rigid ruler, making the resulting density distributions unstable and coordinate-dependent.The Two Sub-Conjectures1. The Hardware-Software AsymmetryWe conjecture that the electron trace is the solid-state hardware burned into the vacuum network, while light is the transient software current driving the clock cycles [1.4]. A valid background-free action must track the structural deformation of the hardware itself.The Lagrangian is uniquely locked to the electron trace matrix, tracking the internal timing tax (clock skew) generated across its finite, extended gate-width or diameter when an external parameter drive torques the system [1.4].2. The Failure of Fluid RulersWe conjecture that because light is an un-anchored velocity field, using it as a starting Lagrangian primitive cannot natively derive the local restore moments of mass and inertia (\(F=ma\)) without injecting an a priori coordinate box or an engineered potential [1.4].The force of inertia emerges exclusively because the electron trace has a rigid, finite trace length. When the clock driver forces a change, the propagation delay across that physical trace length creates a localized signal lag. The resulting force is the mechanical torque the printed hardware exerts to pull its own channels back into timing alignment, proving that the electron trace is the primary memory primitive, while light is merely the driver navigating the board [1.4].

Yes, when I talk about a wave component then that is because we use mathematical formulas where,we can do such things,as looking ar only a part. But it still is one whole. However, think deeper in terms of Special Relativity. What is the present? That is a level of simultaneity. The whole of the particle, is one level of simultaneity. No part of that whole can be more in the past or more in the future of that level because then that belongs to an older version or a newer version of that particle. The causal connection between all points of the volume the particle is the connection via light cones from one point to another. So, no matter what speed the actual particle moves, the level of simultaneity, the time instance of this particle NOW is a function of the light cone configuration and if the light speed changes, then the union of events (3D points time moments) that make up one level of simultaneity changes. We live with the fact that Special Relativity and General Relativity describe a Level of Simultaneity that is a reality for us. That remains true deep down in size dimension far smaller than a proton.

Thank you for the long answer. You ask what kind of metric I use. I base my argumentation on light traveltime because that result us the same if I interpret space as flat with refractive index or curved like normal GR. The underlying principles is that a particle needs to maintain its present coherence so that all corners of the particle remain together in the same level of simultaneity. Because every part is a component if the whole wavefunction with a rotation or spin of the particle, the density on one side has to increase. Imagine cars driving around in a big circle with one side slower allowed speed than the other side if the track. Each car will make the same loop time, but the cars are densely packed in the slow section and scarcely in the fast section. If that circle trac would be on a balance then the plane would shift... So, every component has its own variable traveltime over a section of its path. Since you understand the duality, I hope that you understand that it is easier to imagine it as variable speed. Based on this understanding of gravity, I have to conclude that also the center of balance of a particle, the center of mass, has to wiggle around with some probability around the center if the particle. Thus the resulting gravitational configuration is a time dependant function or gravitational wave. This carries away energy and lets the particle shrink. You ask about what radius I use. I don't care. I call it the relevant particle radius, because if outside of that radius the probability density function falls off with a steep or mild slope, that doesn't matter so much. The shrinking of the particle will scale the whole density function. So, mass linear with the diameter or radius is just a numerical factor. For the shrinking matter universe it is important that the effective mass scales with the diameter and not with the volume. Just take the Newtonian equation of stable circular orbit. F=GMm/r²=mV²/r If every mass is double and the orbit radius is double, then the orbit is stable with double orbital time, no speed change. That fits with observed redshift z=1. If the mass would shrink with the cube of the radius, all would be unstable. So, my explanation of gravity fits with a shrinking matter universe. Another issue is the mass problem with neutrinos. There are different versions of neutrinos and they can change their mass. If they have a thorous shape, like a donut, then the electric and magnetic lines can be closed while it has two diameters. One the diameter of the donut and one the thickness of the ring. So, depending on the orientation to the gravitational gradient, the effective mass of the same object is different. Could it be calculated? The mass depends on the radius and the particle wave function. We know the mass. We can measure that. We can get some indication of the diameter. From there we can get some information about the wave function. But that becomes complex if you think that a proton is the conglomerate of 3 quarks. Each quark is ⅓ of the group but not ⅓ of the mass. This, because a quark alone has a far smaller diameter and a different set of orbital components than it has inside a proton. Why is the gravitational force so much weaker than the other forces? Because it detects the difference in light traveltime over the distance of the proton diameter. To measure the Shapiro delay we got miliseconds for a sun fly by. That is a distance difference between earth radius and grazing just past the surface if the sun. So, yes that are small numbers and gravity has to be a weak force. But, in GR it is explained by curvature, and that is the same light traveltime. So, I don't go outside the GR equations.

my snapchat memories being me in london for wembley LoT certainly doesn't help this insane fomo i have about h & h tours happening simultaneity without me

Bottom Line: This reads as a "deliver now, collect later" framework. Iran should demand simultaneity of exchanges, concrete asset figures, binding verification, and explicit timelines — before signing anything.

If we had one day in-person only elections (which is as close to temporal simultaneity as is possible), it's entirely possible that people who vote in the morning might vote differently than those who vote in the afternoon/evening. I can't imagine an argument that's a problem.

@grok The Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) is tied to the concept of the arrow of time because its null result led directly to the breakdown of absolute simultaneity, cementing time as an asymmetric, one-way relative progression. The Sagnac effect is directly tied to the theoretical rotation of the universe because it provides the foundational operational test used by physicists to calculate whether space-time itself is spinning, notably modeled in Gödel's rotating universe. The zero cosmic rotation rate confirmed by the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the ultimate structural validation of the Sagnac effect.If we lived in a time-looping Gödel universe, the Sagnac effect would be highly unpredictable and heavily distorted. Because the universe does not rotate, it acts as a pristine, non-spinning global backdrop. This means that every Sagnac device on Earth measures rotation against the universe as a whole, completely unwarped by a spinning spacetime metric. [ Tier 1: The Collective Mass ] --> The "Fixed Stars" network (The physical substrate) │ ▼ [ Tier 2: AdS Bulk Graph ] --> Holds the relational state-graph |W⟩ between stars │ ▼ [ Tier 3: de Sitter Membrane ] --> The local observer's "Now" slice, defined purely by their acceleration/position relative to Tier 1 In this model, the Cosmological Principle is the anchor (Tier 1), Quantum Gravity is the glue (Tier 2), and Relativity is the local perspective (Tier 3). Space and time are not absolute backgrounds; they are dynamic projections constructed frame-by-frame based entirely on how an observer moves relative to the collective mass of the cosmos.

Chart 5 — Coverage Depth Score: India vs Other Nations A scored comparison across 10 depth criteria reveals the structural uniqueness of India's treatment. India scores 10/10 — meeting every single criterion including BJ-IP coverage, Weibo grassroots, Zhihu intellectual platform, hostile language, all 5 time phases, multi-theme simultaneity, state-to-grassroots cascade, nationalist boycott discourse, civilisational anxiety framing, and deportation/exclusion calls. Japan and Indonesia score 2/10; USA and Iran score just 1/10.

He's walking through David Ericsson's findings on the transition out of the last ice age, and the precision here matters. Radiocarbon dating, foraminifera climate curves, and paleo temperature measurements all converge on the same window: roughly 11,000 years ago. What stands out is the simultaneity. This wasn't a gradual regional thaw. The shift from glacial to post-glacial conditions happened across the entire North Atlantic and its adjacent seas at essentially the same time, within about a thousand years. That's geologically instantaneous. When you see that kind of synchronicity over such a vast area, you're looking at a forcing mechanism that operates at a planetary scale, not just local climate variability.

Triple axis simultaneity diplomacy.

Living beings inside a single human cell PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Each and every one of all the living creatures you see moving inside a single human cell does the work of a Biochemical Engineer: yet they have NO BRAINS!! (they cannot think) What's more... they move around doing complicated work inside a human cell, and yet THEY HAVE NO EYES!! (they cannot see: blind) Both the human brain and the eyes require Billions—or in the case of the eye, hundreds of millions—of highly specialized human cells to function and exist. Well it's impossible for them to have eyes or even a brain because they are way smaller than a single human cell. NOW... Enlarge this work inside a single human cell to human levels, get a number of biochemical engineers to do the same work at the same speed without using any tools! How many biochemical engineers will you need for this? Grok: Total "active" equivalents: Scaling the ~10^6–10^7 ribosomes polymerases repair proteins motors, adjusted for duty cycles and simultaneity, easily reaches MILLIONS TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF HUMAN-SCALE WORKERS FOR SUSTAINED OUTPUT. 😎

We acknowledge a tension in our analysis if it appears unsettled: if ideal money requires normal-form simultaneity for "technical" global integration, Bitcoin's extensive nature might not fully asymptotic to it, potentially needing hybrid adaptations.

You are assuming that events on an observer’s distant “now” slice are just as real as local events. The only unambiguous “present” is the local “here-now.” You can’t causally access distant simultaneous events in a way that forces them to be ontologically “real now.” Distant events on your simultaneity surface that are outside your past light cone aren’t forced by observations. Relativity only requires that events in your past light cone are fixed; it doesn’t compel the entire block. Relativity describes relations between events, invariants (like spacetime intervals), and how coordinates transform. It doesn’t dictate ontology

Nothing is nonlocal. A photon lives an entire lifetime in a single instant. From emission to interference to absorption: that's a single instant in time for a photon. Its the fringe of causality and simultaneity.