Has einsteins experient with time been proven, why hasn't it been applied or used

**DaleSpam** · Nov15-09, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by mangaroosh

Lack of knowledge of scientific terms is little more than that, a lack of knowledge of scientific terms.

Your problem isn't just a lack of vocabulary, it is a failure to understand the scientific method.

Originally Posted by mangaroosh

Now, the existence of time is not one that requires any fundamental understanding of physics or mathematics

If you are talking about the scientific concept of time then it most certainly is something that requires a fundamental understanding of physics. If you are talking about some non-scientific concept of time then you are in the wrong place and should instead consult a priest or a philosopher.

Originally Posted by mangaroosh

All the measurements that are associated with it can remain, however the perception of what they measure must change.

Why? You have failed to provide any scientific reason to abandon the concept of time as it is. You have not indicated any observation which time-based theories fail to predict and which your proposed time-free theory can predict. On the contrary there are centuries worth of experimental results which time-based theories accurately predict and which your proposed time-free theory has not.

By the way, I don't know what you mean by "fabric of reality". You use it repeatedly, but it is not a term of any theory that I am familiar with.

**russ_watters** · Nov16-09, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by mangaroosh

In keeping with the relative nature of the theory, the measurement that is time (as opposed to the thing which is purported to be time), should be seen as the measurement of the change of an object relative to the number of emissions of changing electrons, or relative to the degrees of rotation the earth, or relative to muon decay, or whatever else. In this sense then measurements can remain, as can the name, however, the perception that time is part of "the fabric of reality" is all that needs to change.

Whatever implications that may have is beyond my scope of interpretation, but just as the perception of the earth as flat changed, so too can the nature of time, with the changes being realised gradually as opposed to en masse.

So if you want to philosophically change the idea that 'clocks measure time' to 'clocks measure the rate of physical processes' and this change has no effect whatsoever on physics theory, how is this at all useful? More to the point: how is this relevant to PhysicsForums?

To me, it just seems like you have a vague discomfort with the problem of a non-absolute time and are looking for a philosophical way to avoid this physics problem. Trouble is, your philosophical "fix" is highly illogical.