"I could never figure out what you are saying about time. There is no such thing as the speed of time as I explained though I am sure that I have not convinced you."
You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the vast majority of the scientific community that believes in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Like I said, I take no position on the theory's validity because I don't understand the math. Newtonian physics is good enough for me because it works on Planet Earth, which is where I spend most of my time. I don't understand all the math in Newtonian physics either, but I am familiar enough with the general principles that, if a tree falls in the forest, I know enough to get out of its way.
Point of clarification: Are you disputing what Einstein said about time, or are you disputing my understanding of what he said? I readily admit that my understanding of it is incomplete. I thought I was onto something with this time thing, but maybe not. Specifically, do you accept the premise that the speed of light is absolute and constant to all observers regardless of their position and state of motion? Do you also accept the premise that two observers of the same light source will see it at the same time regardless of their respective distances from that source? If so, how can that happen without the two observers existing in different points of time?
All that stuff about the ultimate fate of the Universe is theoretical as well. If any of the cyclical theories is true, what's to say that the same individual humans keep reappearing during each cycle? If you melt down a bunch of scrap iron and re-cast it, none of the original metal objects will be recognizable in the finished product. Why would this be any different?
No comments:
Post a Comment