- #1
Islam Hassan
- 235
- 5
Relativity Explained Via Movement, Not "Time"
There is no clock that will measure time independently of movement. And conversely, nothing ever happens that does not move.
Why then do physicists persist in using the notion of "time" in explaining relativity? It would be so much easier, more intuitive and correct to talk of (relative) movement and not time. Things like "time" stopping when we perceive a massive projectile traveling at the speed of light: "time" is a purely anthropic notion that neither begins nor stops since it has no physical existence in itself. What will stop is *movement* this is intuitively easy to understand since mass tends to infinity at the speed of light and you require infinite energy to make it *move*.
Why are physicists so hooked on "time" when only movement exits. I believe that explanations of physical phenomenon -including relativity- would be so much easier using *movement* instead...
IH
There is no clock that will measure time independently of movement. And conversely, nothing ever happens that does not move.
Why then do physicists persist in using the notion of "time" in explaining relativity? It would be so much easier, more intuitive and correct to talk of (relative) movement and not time. Things like "time" stopping when we perceive a massive projectile traveling at the speed of light: "time" is a purely anthropic notion that neither begins nor stops since it has no physical existence in itself. What will stop is *movement* this is intuitively easy to understand since mass tends to infinity at the speed of light and you require infinite energy to make it *move*.
Why are physicists so hooked on "time" when only movement exits. I believe that explanations of physical phenomenon -including relativity- would be so much easier using *movement* instead...
IH