An attempt to clarify the previous post, but will probably obfuscate

If we have a non-expanding, rotating “universe” with a non-zero cosmological constant of sufficiently severe four dimensional geometry, the geodesic (or rather world-line of a particular body) describes a “circle”. This is not to say a body “orbits” continually. That misses the point. Orbits understand the closed loop not as a geodesic, but rather in three dimensional space. Repetition is not the case, but rather the cessation of time per se according to the mathematical construct. The question then becomes not whether this (our) universe could conform to the radical geometry of the “Godel universe” but rather, given the equivalence of all frames of reference in general relativity, how this does not “kill” time for all frames of reference. That is to say that if time (t in equations) can be shown – when conjoined to space in the continuum – to be demonstrably false, what does this do to our intuitive sense (philosophical sense?) of time.

There is a tension between positivist empirical science and theoretical philosophy of science (or theoretical physics). On the one hand, empiricism leads us from our experience of time to the measurement of time by clocks. But this very “commonsensical” approach leads us to the integration of time with space as the four dimensional continuum. If we, in an empirical manner, describe, mathematically, time as space-like all vestiges of “time”, as we experience it, fade. Time then becomes the t of the equation, the fourth dimension in exotic geometry. All that then remains is the equivocal name.