"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
| 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".

Yes. In some way it carries "absoluteness".
(T'was a joke, if not terribly clever. And you are not.)