A Logical Blind Spot Relativistic Reasonning

(Penrose, Feynman ?)

This page responds to the need to find an intellectual community willing to engage in a deep discussion on the relationship between philosophy and physics. Such a discussion requires both the willingness to question the conceptual presuppositions of current theories and the possibility of an open dialogue beyond disciplinary boundaries. This approach aligns with what appears to be one of the objectives pursued by Curt Jaimungal through Theories of Everything: to create a space for reflection in which the conceptual foundations of physics can be examined without disciplinary reduction or prior disqualification, in a spirit of rigor and openness.

to Curt Jaimungal – Theories of Everything –  January 19, 2026

Hello Curt,

Just a brief remark concerning a point that seems to me to touch on something genuinely fundamental in our understanding of space-time.

While working through the following line of reasoning — the Shuttle and Missile Objection — and considering it in light of certain remarks by Richard Feynman on the foundations of physics (see, for example, this video), I think that there is a logical blind spot, rarely made explicit in standard relativistic approaches, though it already surfaces in conceptual paradoxes such as the Andromeda paradox formulated by Roger Penrose.

My question is deliberately simple and open:
do you see, in this reasoning, a precise point where the logic fails?
And if not, do you think there exists a metaphysical principle more fundamental than what I call the mode of action of the driving principle of the universe, on which a genuinely coherent conception of space-time could be founded?

I should add that this reasoning has been public for more than ten years and that, despite many exchanges, no explicit logical refutation has so far been formulated. This is precisely what motivates the question raised here.

The issue is simply to determine whether this type of reasoning can help shed new light on the foundations of physics.

Kind regards,
Philippe de Bellescize
https://www.leprincipemoteurdelunivers.com/

Resources :

Marc Lachièze-Rey’s interpretive error (Fr) 

The fact that clocks do not tick at the same rate depending on their spatial position in no way implies that time does not exist. It only means that the rate of physical processes depends on spatial conditions, which is very different from denying time itself. One cannot arbitrarily rule out the idea that two “identical” clocks, placed in different spatial conditions — for example, on two different floors of the same building — can run simultaneously at different rates. Marc Lachièze-Rey overlooks this point.

Towards a Unified Theory of Univers