Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime.
Hi Pad,
Thank you for your replies, I understand how from our typical pov it will look as if time exists, and i am very familiar with the theory of time, (as I say here's my research list
https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/bib )
The production of my book represents a tremendous amount of work, the kindle version is 500 sides, and throughout every page I have to try to carefully bring people back to systematic thought, in the face of an audience that almost certainly think there is no need to be systematic, becasue they are sure they dont have confirmation bias... becasue they are right.
The main reason for the books existence is becasue I found many comments like the one you quoted above...
Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime
here, with respect, you are accepting and duplicating an opinion about Relativity, from someone else who has accepted and duplicated the opinion, and many people do this.
But, I can tell from your posts that you have not actually checked
"On The electrodynamics of moving bodies", yourself, and that neither has John D Norton.
(
https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...lativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies )
It was in realising how many people were, not being systematic, failing to check their most basic assumptions, and duplicating other peoples conclusions without checking the most basic sources of information that inspired me to put in the effort to produce the book, videos live talks and website.
if you examine just section one ( yes, so many people dont eve read section 1!) of Einsteins "Electrodynamics" , "Kinematics", you will find that in fact SR does not show that a thing called time exists, or "passes", as things exist and move, but in fact Relativity only gives and example that shows things move, and we can compare examples of motion.
Specifically In Einsteins own example he clearly just compares two examples of motion, and "calls" one of them "time". If the ramifications of this are understood, it's a real game changer showing for example that you, John D Norton, and anyone else who relies on Relativity to back up a view on "time", may be wrong to do so.
SR does show us that moving oscillators are oscillating more slowly than expected, but that is not evidence that a thing called time exists and passes, between a past and future, or that there is a fourth dimension. the leap from moving oscillators running slow to...
[ melding] space and time together to form a four-dimensional space time
is massive, and i think you will find, invalid.
mm
I've tried to link to a specific part of this talk that explains this
as I say, time may exist, or we may be wrong from the outset top make such an assumption... and even Einstein, Minkowski's,
Georges Lemaîtres , and Hubbles, work ( et al) , may contain that false assumption, unless checked, just quoting them will only add false certainty...
imo, as i said in my first post,
it's worth really asking oneself the question
"If matter JUST exists, moves, changes and interacts... Would this be enough to *mislead* us into "wrongly assuming", that there is a 'past', 'future' and thing called 'time' "?
( and watch out for that confirmation bias

)