Actually on page 2 the Now for the 65.4K question was asked. And then it was simply this:
"Why the blazes would anyone want to do that?"
Nothing about always.
However this is not entirely the point.
The point is this:
Instead of saying TIME is relative you could say that THINGS...
I dare to disagree.
You could just as well say that Einstein simply expanded Galileo's relativity and said:
All physics (including the findings of Maxwell and the speed of light) is the same to...
Which can be written simply as A -> B
But please have in mind that it really is the...
Now Tom.
You have again and again pointed at your writings at the philosophy formum.
I did read it and it simply confirmed what I already knew. You haven´t understood what I have been talking about.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Popper or falsificationism. This isn't about...
Let's put it like this.
1. The laws of nature are the same to every observer no matter what his frame of reference is.
2. No experiment can reveal in which frame of reference you are. It can only reveal your movement or position relative to someone else.
3. By changing velocity or...
This is just along the lines I am thinking.
If we were able to calculate how super accurate clock would run in different circumstances we surely would be at least one step away from relativity of time.
Having the twin paradox in mind both twins would say that there have been x rotations of...
Now surely you are either joking or not grasping what I have been saying. This is of course a crude simplification. You can not say that science is done a posteriory and and the same time that it is never proven. You fall straight into a logical trap.
There must be another measuring system as...
So we are basically down to this question: Does Einstein's relativity render the concept of "absolut time" useless?
Perhaps it does.
As I said in my original post I really can see that relativity of time is possible but I don´t see how all other possibilities (including the one with...
I am a bit surprised by the aggressive tone of some of the replies. This is hardly a place of worship, it is a place for throwing around ideas, clarifying some difficult things for some (such as myself) and throw about some of the most marvelous things about the world we live in.
However, I...
I think we are not exactly on the same page here. I have absolutely no reason to think that the math of Einstein is faulty in any way. I just can't see that the findings (to the extent I understand them) contradict an concept of universal time.
Let's imagine that the material world simply...
Again, thanks for very good answers.
Hurkyl: What I ment is that if one is looking for a "proof" of the relativity of time, it would neither be brilliant nor important to plainly assume that something we know to be relative is time.
chroot: I am merely thinking along those lines: Does the...
Thanks for a quick and informed reply.
I, however, fail to grasp the logical connection between the speed of light being constant and time being relative.
Would you please clarify?
I understand that if you define time as being "that which clocks measure" then time must be relative. But that...
This is my first post here. I have been trying to understand the logic behind the exclaimation that time is relative. To this moment I have failed.
I guess I need some additional information in order to do this so I ask for your help.
As it looks to me now Einstein has merely proven that...