10 ms·
Though experiments are flawed in a way that a untyped logical statements may be - they mix and match abstract concepts with "concrete" ones so to speak. It is j
by johndoe42377 6y ago
Though experiments are flawed in a way that a untyped logical statements may be - they mix and match abstract concepts with "concrete" ones so to speak. It is just a type error as multiplying birds by trees.
Everything which follow the famous two lighting and a train thought experiment is simply logially flawed. Full of type errors.
Time as we know it, which presumably could accelerate and what not does not objectively exist, exactly and precisely the way numbers does not exit outside one's mind. Relations are, numbers not. Processes are, time isn't.
This is how I hacked Einstein. Why not?
- msla 6y agoIf you have different physics, use it to make predictions, show those predictions are different from what the current physics says, and then do experiments to show your predictions are correct. Otherwise, you have nothing to say.
- Dylan16807 6y agoYou can refuse to call it 'time', but there's something that adjusts in an extremely predictable way that matches the relativity equations. And that something is what people are talking about. The measurements are very definitely correlated; they skew as predicted to high precision. Do you have any objection to the output of the equations matching reality, or do you just object to how we interpret the equations? Because the former is physics, and the latter is philosophy.