Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
message ...

"dlzc" escreveu na mensagem
...

On May 5, 9:19 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"

wrote:
"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na
.. .
...
How can the above two pillar stones of
Physics survive in view of time dilatation
(and time not being absolute after all)?

Because "absolute" is something
artificially impressed by *human*
expectation.

Unfortunately for you, you cannot solve
any Physical problem without that "absolute
fixed frame of reference".

I do it all the time. "substitution of
variables", "selecting a coordinate frame",
everything starts with "the difference
between here and there".

In theory that's fine.
In practice you're bond by the experimental
set up, made here on Earth, or nearby.

Or light sources 1.7 Gy away. Still all these things are
relative to "here and now".

Put the theory written on paper aside.
Look only for real world experiments.

They are only experiments if Nature is challeged / queried.

If you're in trouble to find where the absolute
frame of reference is, call me and I'll tell you.

We've got 100+ years of experimental results, and we have moved
more than 946 billion miles in that time. "Here and now" does
not really work as an "absolute frame".

So I am calling you.

You simply cannot solve problems in thin air.
You need a paper for that, where you place an
absolute fixed frame of reference.

It is not absolute. It is "bond".

Whatever.

"Bond" is a type of paper. T'was a joke, if not terribly clever.

You always need a background frame of
reference and that same frame is assumed
to be something that carries absoluteness.

No. It in no way assumes "absoluteness".

David A. Smith