Draft talk:Demonstration of the No Relativity of Time
In reality, the one who moves may be undergoing acceleration. Further, if this acceleration affects the chronometer mechanism, then the recorded times for the one who moves may be ahead, behind, or have greater error of reproducibility, compared to those for the one on Earth not undergoing the acceleration.
This situation for the one who moves suggests that time may be relative to acceleration or the force producing the acceleration. If the one who moves undergoes the same effect as the chronometer mechanism, then the time for the one who moves is different than for the one who does not. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Time is absolute; i.e., time is always independent of movement, including acceleration.
"Premise: Lets suppose time is different for the one who moves."
Then either no chronometer mechanism undergoing acceleration can accurately measure time at one extreme, or time may be a dependent variable and is not absolute at the other.
The first contradicts your no relativity of time because we can never know the time, and the second contradicts the absolution of time. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- "demonstration" not "demostration",
- "Premise" not "Premisse",
- "Let's", or "Let us", not "Lets",
- "one who moves" not "one who move".
The above two sections: Chronometer movement and First postulate demonstrate that time is a dependent variable; hence, your demonstration is false. I recommend against publication unless these concerns are appropriately addressed. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I had left the following note on your talk page. It did not get answered. I had written:
- Javier José Moreno Tovar18: I went through your essays relating to relativity. I would need to ask you whether you have even gone through the theory of relativity. Rather than taking an externalistic view I would insist you to go into the details and to refute the details. Visual proof might not be good enough to consider as evidence. In fact you might have a visual confirmation that the sun revolves round the earth and so do the stars. It is only after a careful correlation of the deeper facts that you would realize that it could be otherwise.
- You might also have irrefutable proof that microbes cannot be the cause of disease simply because you have never seen one around. You may also like to believe that dinosaurs never existed just because they were not mentioned in the Bible or because you never saw one around. But perhaps it would be a good idea to grow your knowledge first. It is only after expanding your knowledge that you would be able to evaluate whether the logic is good enough. Thereafter you can feel free to refute the details rather than doing that summarily. Prior to that you would need to learn the methodology of analytical thinking.
- Javier José Moreno Tovar18: Can you refute my claim that the internet does not and cannot exist. My visual justification is that in absence of any physical connection between people how can people communicate with or gain knowledge from people or sources that are not in their vicinity. I do not think that a message can be conveyed instantaneously across the globe. Furthermore, I walk on flat ground and so I would like to consider that the earth must be flat. Besides, can you be hanging upside down from below the globe? Can you refute these claims? Diptanshu💬 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)