Relativity has its limits: in mathematics Pasta, any repository is valid in principle. But as soon as it enters the concrete, Noodly Touch muddies. As if sciences Påstås all repositories are equal, there are nevertheless more equal than others.

So for the Apple falling from the tree of Newton, we can consider the apple as a reference, in which case it is the Earth that falls on the apple, and no the apple on Earth. But we feel the sting here. In fact it is neither one nor the other : they are both around their common center of gravity. Well, given the respective masses, might reasonably consider the Earth as the center of gravity.

For rent: in fact it is the Earth that falls on the Apple. But if another Apple falls at the same time at the other end of the Earth ? Well two apples fall one towards the other cancelling respective falls of the Earth toward them : "Aaarghh... no but !... nothing at all ! Seriously (hum!) all Imploding, it is just that the mass of the Earth slightly slows its implosion (due to its mass and/or his movement), is therefore relatively grows from apple (and mutually), and is therefore going to meet them. It is imperceptible, but that's enough to give the impression that apples fall, while it is the Earth that swells (revelation is here, the time is grave, because the gravity is that !).

Nevertheless in double star systems, none of the two stars is running around each other, but well around their common center of gravity. So it was found the first "exo-planets" massive (around other stars), because their enormous masses was move their star in their rotation around their common center of gravity.
There is therefore well on centres of reference (because still not found the ultimate centre), we remember our astronaut traveling extremely fast : it is younger than its congeners (well, it would have been proven in space). But in taking as the repository (like the apple) would be the Earth who have travelled faster than him, and therefore its congeners which should be younger... Then what?

Il y aurait donc bien des centres de référence relatifs ( Car on a toujours pas trouvé la centre ultime ), Souvenons-nous de notre spationaute voyageant extrêmement vite : Il revient plus jeune que ses congénères (bon, ça aurait été prouvé lors des sorties dans l'espace). Mais en le prenant comme référentiel (comme la pomme) ce serait la Terre qui aurait voyagé plus vite par rapport à lui, et donc ses congénères qui devrait être plus jeunes... Alors quoi ?

Et bien, le temps a à voir avec la masse des objets : Einstein avait trouvé que la masse courbait l'espace-temps. Comme dans les rotations, c'est l'objet le plus massif qui bouge le moins (dans l'espace, et donc aussi dans le temps). Il y aurait donc des centres de gravité du temps (lié aux masses en présence). Ce qui repose la questions du centre ultime de l'univers ? Souvenons nous de l'image en anneau de l'univers

And well, the time has to do with the mass of objects : Einstein had found that the mass knocked the spacetime. As in the rotation, it is the more massive object that moves least (in space, and therefore also in time). It would be centres of gravity of the time (linked to the masses in presence). What is the questions of the ultimate Center of the universe ? Remember we image the world ring.

In the universe, the centre of gravity is in the centre, eh Yes! (and both external)

But this vision is only shematic : in fact all would be in the same place at the same time, but without being in the same place at the same time also !!!
I hope that you well followed me so far, because we still turn to a higher speed, and I will leave your field of perception if we do not move at the same speed.
Repository change : imagine that the universe implodes not at the speed of light, but explodes at this speed. well indeed, it is neither one nor the other, but the two at a time : it is just a matter of point of view to map things. See therefore our 2 objects expanding ++ :
A, in its expansion, expands in A' up to the old position of B, and there met his light memory remained in place. Imagine that this is not the light memory of B, but B he remained motionless in his former temporality. In short, B would be expanded to B', and... also remained equal to him even in different temporalities. Short has, in its expansion in has ' (at the speed of light) collects the object B in t-1, as it passes through t, as if it were a wave while B would in fact remained as an object in its former temporality, everything exploded in B' "also" at the moment t. B would without mass for A' (as wave) by entering its perceptual horizon, while keeping its mass in B' (off horizon in a micro second closely).

In the ring below, all would be present in the same repository space-temporal, while being also in another space-temporal reference. Thus objects back in time "crossing" us at the place and time where we are, but we saw no : the representation ring above above is that a schema to better "see" our perceptual horizon, but may be 1 metre from us as to years lights.

All is in all, and nothing is in nothing... What !?

In conclusion : the truth do not exist (including the one above) QED.
And Our Sneaky Deity in this ? Well it is the centre of gravity of the space-temporal universe (infinitely massive), becoming imperceptible and intangible in our perceptual horizon. "He" is both what the universe is, and with no effect on him also, except when he rips the perceptual horizon with his Noodly Appendage.

In Nomine Spaghetti, Secula Secularum                           Râmen

perdu ? la carte aux trésors

.