The mathematical theory of relativity of time and space knows no present.
It postulates only a continuing stream of time, from an obscure beginning
a big bang, ein Urknall... Beginning of what? Of time, of space, of
matter, of energy, of light? to an end not now in sight or conceivable,
while in the meanwhile the universe is putatively observed to expand 
with the speed of light. Of what, if anything, may we be sure? And what
does it mean to be sure of something, of everything or of nothing?

Are the foregoing assertions "facts" or are they theories? Do they comprise
notions of sanity and insanity? If so, where do they fit in a realistic 
account of the world? What means sane, and what means insane? By whom and 
how are sanity and insanity adjudicated?

In a manner similar to that in which the light to the retina generates an 
afterimage and a memory, and sound to the cochlea is survived by a 
tone, a harmony, a melody in the mind, so the awareness of the relentless 
unceasing passage of time, the ticking away of minutes in seconds, the 
passage of seconds in electromagnetic oscillations of the caesium atom, 
generate in the mind the awareness of its own existence, of its activity 
on a stage it calls the present, which has no definable beginning or end, 
other than the awakening from sleep in the morning and the lapsing into sleep 
at night. Arguably, bounded as it is by nocturnal sleep at its beginning and 
at its end, the calendar day might be denominated as an ever recurring
present, different for every person according to his own schedule.
And yet on many, if not on most days by the time that evening comes,
the morning has been forgotten, and should therefore not be included
in a present which on closer consideration is, and can be defined only
by fluctuating consciousness and is therefore not susceptible to any
objective measurement.

I have found on the Internet a drawing of time, which consists of two
light cones, inverted to each other, whose apices touch a plane of
infinitesimal thickness, called "Hypersurface of the Present", perpendicular
to the axes of the cones at a point designated "observer". As I understand it,
this drawing is the graphic display of certain calculations to give to
the hypotheses of relativity theory intuitive visual meaning.

I am reminded of Leibniz' mathematical theology, which postulated God as
a mathematician who on the occasion that we would now call the "Big Bang"
had preprogrammed all the events of this, the best of all possible worlds, 
for time extending onto an infinite future. I see the precise analogy
between Leibniz' vision and the open ended theories of contemporary 
cosmologers.

Reflecting on my theory that God constitutes the intersection of the
otherwise isolated subjectivity experienced by the faithful individual 
with an hypothetical virtual objectivity experienced by members of the group, 
the clan, or the herd, I saw a rough analogy with the drawing of the inverted 
light cones whose tips are in apposition at the infinitesimally thin 
hypersurface of the present. In my tentative experimental theology, 
one cone would represent the inward piety of the individual. 
The other cone would represent the manifestation of outward piety, 
such as the beliefs that are confessed, e.g. in the Nicene Creed.

The hyperconsciousness or hyperconscience at which the cones of inward 
piety and outward piety touch, is a hyperplane of infinite horizontal and 
infinitesimal vertical dimensions which we call God.