Proper time measures this distance so to speak between two events as though a clock had passed through it and enables a causal connection. Coordinates are essentially used as labels in science that help us identify spatial events and time actually holds no real significance in the physical sense; take time dilation, for instance. — TimeLine

I don't follow you here. What do you mean time holds no real significance? And what does this have to do with time dilation?

The propagation of information cannot move faster than the speed of light and it is why we have the theory of special relativity. — TimeLine

Hmm yeah, agreed.

No one experiences the present. It is only future and past. — TimeLine

:-O That's not at all obvious. I would say we only experience the present directly, and the future/past indirectly via our faculty of memory.

I think your op misses the most important aspect of time. Time exists as the separation, or division, between past and future. The difference which exists between past and future is likely the most important aspect of our living experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

The notion of past and future are tied to memory though. We know about the past, and by extension the future because we have memory. Without memory, there would be no notion of past and future, just the present.

We experience a separation between past and future, and there is something about this separation which is always changing, the anticipated future comes to pass, so there is always becoming a new past. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think we experience such a separation, as much as we construct it.

But there is also something about the separation between past and future which seems to always stay the same, and this is what allows us to measure time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Meaning? What is this that stays the same?

Now those few people here complaining about Special Relativity, you should watch this (and after drop the tin foil hats):



Special Relativity is a very simple theory, the only additional assumption compared to classical mechanics is that light travels at a fixed speed everywhere. Nobody with a good understanding of physics can disagree with special relativity.

This is one of the questions I have regarding cosmological arguments. In what sense are we to understand God "causing" the universe (and time) to exist, if there was no time before hand? — darthbarracuda

Obviously, the time in question would not be the time physics and the materialist deal with. Before the creation of the Universe there was no time for the physicist/materialist because there were no phenomena that could be used to measure time. Acts of creation are not acts in time. They are events. But events are not necessarily linked by any flow of time in particular. Think of it as the still frames in a movie. Each frame is an event as it were. Time is only that which links them, we could imagine the same frames changing faster or slower. So having events is not sufficient to have a notion of a moving time.

Our concept of causality seems to me to be intrinsically tied to time. Things change because of certain causes, and this takes time to happen. — darthbarracuda

Yes, and our notion of causality, as we scientifically understand it, is also immanent and with reference to the world. No world, no causality as understood by science.

So if time did not exist "before" (what does that even mean, though, "before time" - was there a time before time?), in what sense is God "causing" the world to exist? — darthbarracuda

First, the Prime Mover argument isn't even that. The Prime Mover argument is that every second God is causing the Universe to exist.

This would be another way of saying the same thing. There is a standard which is used for measuring simultaneity with some event (with the standard) and then there is another event being used to measure simultaneity. The two events can then be judged against each other. — Rich

No it's not. Simultaneity is ultimately a fake concept because physical time itself is relative. Simultaneous in one reference frame isn't simultaneous in another. The very concept of simultaneity presupposes some objective time, some transcendent time, that can encompass both events and say that the clock striked 12 at the same time the spaceship passed by us. But if time is immanent, then simultaneity is relative.

Stephen Robbins — Rich

Who is he and what are his credentials? By the looks of his website he is a retired amateur with a hobby interest in Bergson.

Duration (real time) from a Bergsonion perspective, would be actual evolution as experienced. It is not transcendental, but rather the actual. I'm v would be continuous (indivisible) and heterogeneous (feels as though it is moving faster or slower). — Rich

Yes, that's why in my second repetition I said:

What about the philosophical idea that time is heterogeneous? This idea seems to suggest that time does not always flow the same way. It seems to agree with the 'materialist' view that time is not absolute but rather relative but places the relativity of time within conscious experience rather than within what we call the objective world. — Agustino

The prior conception you quoted wasn't of the Bergsonian notion. This one is, and since time is relative to our conscious experience it can't be transcendent to it. Hence why I said "agree with the 'materialist'"

Time, for science, is a method for judging simultaneity of events based upon some standardized rhythm of a chosen standard. — Rich

That's a one-sided view. It's also a method for judging how fast an event happens compared to a fixed standard.

Special Relativity contains the standard time that we know of in school, and is used to explain why two observers may c disagree on the simultaneity of two events as they experience it. Beyond this Relatively time is given some ontological significance which begins to produce paradoxes which are always red flags, especially since Special Relatively can only be applied to a non-accelerating environment, e.g. one that is not within a gravitational field. Time in General Relativity is defined differently than in Discussing Relativity because the measurement problems are different. — Rich

I don't buy this.

It one is inquiring into the nature of life, then understanding philosophical time is crucial, including the time we experience when we are asleep or unconscious. — Rich

Why? And how come you say we "experience" time while asleep or unconscious? I don't experience anything while asleep or unconscious.

They do not grasp the full meaning or experience. To substitute equations for life just leads to mass confusion which generally reveals itself as paradoxes. — Rich

You have yet to show this.

WHAT is the feels like something? — schopenhauer1

Clearly it is the feels like something! :P When you ask "what is" you can only answer in terms of other things. So if you ask what is an apple? I can answer in terms of other things: a fruit, red, etc. Of course none of those independently are what an apple is. To a certain extent the debate between you isn't only about metaphysics, but also about what you mean when you each ask the questions you ask.

Yeah, the fantastic thing is that mind emerges from mindlessness (according to some), which is effectively nothing more but the belief that something can come from nothing. Everything else is just mental gymnastics.

To me cowardice is a type of feeble-mindedness, a person who lacks will and prefers others to think on his behalf and a man who needs to bulk up by taking steroids is a coward because they are following a false image, what makes one in the Thrasymachian sense appear as a 'man' when subjectively they are worms. It is no different to those women who use botox and get implants etc because it is all a game, a competition of who can pull off the best lie. Add a touch of superficial kindness to that mask and everyone applauds and congratulates it - look at the Kardashians, a bunch of psychotic people that everyone defends tooth and nail. Being cowardly does not mean being scared or afraid in the way that we often interpret it, but succumbing to that lack of self-esteem that makes one enslaved by the need to garner other people's approval. They sacrifice their own identity and hand their souls over for others to think on their behalf. It disgusts me. — TimeLine

Hmm, yes I see your meaning now, and I would agree.

Why do you need me to expand? Thrasymachus was most appealing because of his interpretation of injustice hiding behind the appearance of justice, the very purpose of this thread in that he did not impose moral ideals but rather interpreted politics through a realism of human motivation. — TimeLine

Oh I see. Well, Plato also knew that that is the case for most people. I'm sure he wasn't that naive, given that Athens was responsible for the unjust death of his master Socrates. That's in fact why he wrote the Republic. If what Thrasymachus said wasn't the conventional morality of the times, Plato wouldn't have bothered.

No, I meant where or who states that conventional morality is to do whatsoever is good for you, regardless of whether it is good for others. As in, why conventional morality? — TimeLine

It is conventional because that's the morality of most people. Not their proclaimed morality, but rather their lived morality. When Plato calls it conventional he asserts his total opposition to what most people think in their souls. Indeed, the Republic is his attempt to prove most people, who think like Thrasymachus, that they are wrong, and that the good man will come out victorious in this life and in the next as well.

However the very standards of what constitutes truth, have themselves been thrown into doubt, so accordingly, the spirit of the age is chaos. — Wayfarer

Yes indeed. But it's something that has been coming for a long time Wayfarer. Darkness is finally starting to lay hold of the world properly, but it has been here for a long time.

We'll see how the world will emerge from it.

If I go to a fiery pit then it will be for unjust reasons. An infinite punishment for a finite sin is unjust, especially when I didn't ask to be a part of this cosmic drama. — darthbarracuda

Oh well, if you sense of injured justice will make you feel better while in the center of the pit, sure, why not? >:)

Yes, there is always hope -- the blade of the guillotine begins it's rapid decent. Let's see... why would there be hope here? Oh yes, an explosion a second before the blade was released sends a beam into the certain trajectory of the slicer and knocks it athwart, saving the victim till things can be put back in order. Then the execution resumes. — Bitter Crank

Nope. Do you know the life story of Dostoyevsky? He was saved from death row right before it was his turn.

Miracles do not intercede on behalf of the hopeful 999 out of 1000, and then it wasn't a miracle at all. — Bitter Crank

Sure, so what? The gods pick and choose whom they shall exalt, and whom they shall crush. The Ancients all were keenly aware of this, that their own life ultimately did not lie in their hands.

Bad faith, too. "The helicopter crashed, but my two relatives survived while the rest of the 8-man crew died in a fiery crash." God performed a miracle." a Deaconess told me. Miracle, indeed! If God performs miracles, why save just her not particularly remarkable relatives and send the 6 others to an agonizing death? — Bitter Crank

Simple, God can pick and choose who dies and who lives. I don't think this is bad in any sense of the term. Human beings are not in charge of their own lives. God's sun shines on the wicked and on the good. The good may be crushed, as Job was, and the evil may be given power. Or the contrary.

God saved you and allowed 10,000 others to die. Praise God! His sun shines on the wicked and on the good.

I didn't feel like potato salad, so I missed the the salmonella that were swarming in the bowl, and later killed several people at the picnic. A miracle. — Bitter Crank

In many ways, it is.

999 times out of 1000 isn't "hope" it's grasping at straws which 999 times out of 1000 will be very disappointing. — Bitter Crank

You don't have much of an alternative. It's a strategic choice. If you chance of success is 0.00001% then you better play it to the best of your abilities. What, it's better to just drop your weapons and make your chance go to 0%? Whenever I find myself in a terrible situation, I am pessimistic, but still hope for a miracle. As Heraclitus said, unless you expect the unexpected, you will not find it.

And of course, a miracle is very unlikely. That's why in the worst situations it takes a miracle - something extremely unlikely - to save you. It's very likely it won't happen. But it may.

I don't think it's disappointing so long as you realize it is very unlikely, but still possible. This means you need to be a realist. Your attitude is not a realistic attitude, it's a defeatist pessimistic attitude since it doesn't take into account that slim chance of success which does exist, even if it is small. You need to see things for what they are.

What you need to do, Agustino, is plan on dying one of these days. — Bitter Crank

I disagree, I don't see my days as under my control, so whether I plan for it or I don't, I'll still have to die at the same time. So I'd rather plan for other things.

Have you seen the Bergman film, Seventh Seal? You should see it before it is too late. I hope you have time -- it's one of those films one should see before one dies. — Bitter Crank

No, haven't seen it. Thanks for sharing it.

But this is not to recommend free climbing with no experience on hundred foot cliffs while on LSD. — unenlightened

Well why do you think because of LSD you'd be in a worse position? I think you might be in a better position because of diminished fear response.

No. I realised I was in a precarious position and paused to consider - left, right, up, down, but not for too long, as the longer you stay in a strained position, the weaker the muscles get. Beautiful place tho. — unenlightened

Ahh see - the LSD helped you :P

the difference between top and bottom, life and death, has just seemed trivially small at the personal level - a clump of grass that does, or does not bear your weight for a second. — unenlightened

Well, I would say that's right since life is very fragile.

Your body might do anything to stay alive when it is healthy and merely being chased by a long-legged ferociously angry feminist wielding an already bloodied axe. — Bitter Crank

>:O >:O

The dying are not necessarily in terrible mental shape -- they can be reconciled, patient, and even cheerful while they lay in bed. — Bitter Crank

It is hard to imagine though. I have a family member who is almost 100, and he suffered a stroke recently. He has recovered very well, but I can tell you 100% that he is very scared of death (his own admission), even while he was recovering. He was also very angry at doctors, nurses, family members, etc.

It is vital that the dying not be given false hope, so they can reconcile with their dying. "Oh no, there is always hope" is cruel bullshit when there really isn't any hope. — Bitter Crank

But there actually is always hope :P . It's just a fact of nature. Even when you're almost 100 there is hope, even when everyone says there isn't, so you really never know. Chances may be very big that you're going to die, but miracles are always possible.

This is one of the things I've learned about life. Even in the most impossible situations, there is still hope. It may not come to pass, but things can turn around very rapidly.

Well to tell you that dying doesn't scare me is stupid. I doubt there exists any person who does not feel fear somewhere along in the process. It's natural, since your body wants to stay alive, and will do anything in its power to do so. That includes making your mind feel fear so that it forces you to do something to keep it alive.

So although I would feel fear, I don't think I would despair. In other words, I would be able to keep the fear in check through the use of reason and my character. But then, I do believe in an afterlife :P

But the notion that there is an end to suffering is also relieving. — darthbarracuda

What if you go to the fiery pit? O:) >:)

Unfortunately, about twenty feet from the top, and about a hundred and twenty feet from the bottom, I came across a layer of very crumbly rock; I grabbed at the next handhold, and a five kilo lump came away in my hand. I watched fascinated as it floated gently down and smashed itself to dust on the rocks below.

I considered trying to climb down, but climbing down without a rope is much harder than climbing up, because one's eyes are at the wrong end for seeing the next foothold. There was nothing for it but to fly rapidly up the crumbly rock, touching it as little as possible. So I did. — unenlightened

>:O Did you actually panic when you saw that?

My prediction: I don't think you really panicked, maybe you were just very afraid, but you still believed you could do it. You still had some faith left. Because it happened to me when I first practiced climbing a cliff that I panicked in the middle of it, and actually fell off lol - I was lucky because it was practice and I was attached with a rope from above. If you get that scared then reason and everything else goes away, and you can do something stupid just to escape from the fear, including something that kills you lol. I was in 10th grade back then. But I remember the feeling distinctively.

There are two possibilities: either I managed by a miracle to finish the incredibly dangerous climb in spite of being completely off my box, or I am lying broken at the base of the cliff, hallucinating these subsequent 50 odd years as I die. — unenlightened

>:O

in spite of being completely off my box — unenlightened

I had to research what this strange expression meant. But now that I have, I will speculate that you escaped not in spite of being completely off your box, but rather because of it. It probably prevented you from getting so scared that you lost all control.

Well actually there are loads of other possibilities as well, but anyway, the possibility of already being dead, and this being an afterlife takes the sting out of death completely. — unenlightened

Yeah but that "possibility" is like the possibility of the sun not rising tomorrow. Logical possibility alone isn't sufficient to justify a position.

Why does anyone even care about the "investments" and things they did while they were alive? — Lone Wolf

If such was the case, I don't think they would care after they're dead, but they would obviously care while alive, because they will have to live with the consequences of their choices until they die.

Why do you have joy in life, knowing that you will become nothing very soon? Knowing that you will be forgotten, why do you care about being you? What joy is there in helping others or indulging in pleasures? The people you loved and cared for are nothing also, the pleasures are meaningless. — Lone Wolf

This:

Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility [...]

The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to recieve a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should preffer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning [...]

Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them — Benedictus de Spinoza

So the real question that remains is, what if the idea of no life after death is wrong? — Lone Wolf

Yeah, I too think that the idea of life after death is scarier than the idea that death is the end in many regards.

Regardless of the specifics, the point was simply to mark a line of bifurcation or divergence between Plato on the one hand, and Thucydides, Pericles, and Homer on the other, with respect to their treatment of politics. — StreetlightX

Okay. However please note that politics isn't much the right word, their main difference runs along their ethics. Plato has an ethical disagreement with Thrasymachus - and by extension Thucydides, Pericles, Homer, etc. - and he outlines the bifurcation at the beginning of the Republic as well. This ethical disagreement does have political consequences.

My suggestion is that Thucydides and the like are more attentive to the autonomy of the political, decoupling it from any necessary link to ethics, and as such stand at the beginning of a philosophical lineage that Machiavelli also belongs to. — StreetlightX

So do you think Plato assumes a necessary link between politics and ethics? I don't think Plato is that naive.

And of course, the ultimate Socratic irony of the Republic is that the good man wins in this life as much as in the next, so really, Plato's point is that the Machiavellian (using this in a modern sense) who sits and plots regardless of the ethics involved ultimately comes out on the short end of the stick, not only in the afterlife, but in this very life also.

So I think politics is absolutely independent of ethics. That is clear by having a look at our politicians. Furthermore, Plato is actually quite subversive of politics. Plato does not value politics. The only reason why anyone wants to rule is to prevent others worse than them from holding power. It is much like how Frodo holds the One Ring until it can be destroyed to prevent someone worse than him from getting ahold of it ;) - that's why they are 'guardians'.

I have heard grown men who inject themselves with steroids to appear masculine retort "yep, I am a coward!" — TimeLine

Hmm, that is indeed an interesting scenario. There are two kinds of men who would declare that. Those who really don't care that they are cowards, and want to go on living in that way, and those who do not think they are cowards but reply so nevertheless just to shut up the one who accuses them that they are cowards since they do not want to engage in discussion. They really have no preference whether they appear as cowards, their concern is solely with the reality.

hence knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave. — TimeLine

I agree.

The consequences of cowardice is irrelevant to one willing to be enslaved or to follow the herd — TimeLine

Yes, for the most part. But the exceptions would be if the consequences of following the herd or being enslaved were more fearsome than those of rebelling.

In everything that I remember reading in the Republic, Thrasymachus was indeed the most appealing to me — TimeLine

Can you expand on what you mean?

Where? — TimeLine

Oh, in the behavior of the many who follow it :P . Thrasymachus, in fact, explains this at the beginning of the Republic. Most people know this truth, but maintain a different façade. This truth is in fact part of the behaviour that is considered acceptable in society.

For example, to a certain extent our society considers it acceptable to divorce your husband for a richer one, especially if you are a poor woman. Then your relatives who a second ago were preaching virtue will come to you, and will encourage you to divorce, because this man has a lot more money, it will be great for your kids, you'll be able to provide them with the best education - as soon as power, fame or money enters into the equation, you can almost see how their behaviour suddenly changes, and their opinions revert to what they were truly thinking beyond the façade.

To a certain extent (but not completely) this is the tactical approach advocated by Homer, Thrasymachus, etc. Seeking to profit - in socially acceptable ways - from such matters. And it is socially acceptable because in the back of our minds we accept it in others, and even expect it from them, even if we don't speak of it. Because we accept it, and even expect it in ourselves, so to not accept it, even in an underhanded way in others, would be to not accept it in ourselves, and that we cannot bear.

Also, re: Machiavelli and Thrasymachus: one thing that is often forgotten is that Machiavelli was not, himself, 'Machiavellian' in the sense of simply being a power-hungry schemer. The goal for Machiavelli was never simply power but the cultivation of virtù, the achievement of greatness or excellence (not unlike, by the way, the great deeds of the Homeric heroes). This in turn meant paying attention to the winds of forunta, those opportune moments that arose for the taking (again, not unlike the Greek notion of kairos, which, unsurprisingly, Plato was supremely suspicious of).

There's a deep attention to political reality in Machiavelli, which sets him very much against the 'ideal-theory' orientation of Plato and Rawls. But importantly this doesn't mean that the only thing to be concerned about is power and it's pursuit, even as they at least now become important considerations. Thrasymachus in this sense is a caricature of Machiavelli, who is far more subtle in his understanding of politics than either Plato or Thrasymachus. — StreetlightX

I am a Platonist to a certain extent but I am at the same time a believer that unless the stars have aligned, so to speak, you will fail in your endeavours. So on the contrary, I absolutely believe in Machiavelli's notion of Fortuna, but that doesn't guide my morality.

I think you are misinterpreting Plato. Afterall, it was also Plato who said:

"The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself" - Plato

You must also remember that Plato was different from Socrates, precisely because Plato wanted to avoid what happened to Socrates.

Thrasymachus in this sense is a caricature of Machiavelli, who is far more subtle in his understanding of politics than either Plato or Thrasymachus. — StreetlightX

Thrasymachus wants to argue that conventional morality (the morality of Homer) is true morality, and Plato soundly refutes him.

All the characters in his history are allowed to exhibit the highest possible intelligence, clarity, and rationality in pursuing their respective enterprises, regardless of the judgments representatives of conventional morality would make on them. Socrates, however, “dragged moralizing into science,” and Plato followed in his wake. — StreetlightX

This right here is false. Conventional morality IS the morality of Thrasymachus, not that of Socrates and Plato. Conventional morality does say to do whatsoever is good for you, regardless of whether it is good for others. If you can grab power by assasinating your political opponents without getting caught, then you should do it. That's what conventional morality says, and that's what it has always said. Now people don't speak openly about it (because they think it's better to appear moral), but it doesn't change the fact that this is the morality that governs their soul (meaning their behaviour).

Plato's Republic is not a political work, but rather a work of ethics. The Republic seeks to understand how to harmonize man's psyche in order to produce inner unity and strength, which is necessary before you can take advantage of the winds of fortune. And Plato finds that that is achievable through morality.

The reason why Plato discusses a society, instead of a human being is given by Socrates early on. Since society is man writ large, it is easier to perceive the effects of morality on society (since they're larger, they're amplified), than it is to perceive them on the soul of man. They can only be perceived inside yourself, after you have perceived them outside.

Time, even as objective phenomenon, is never neutral. When you make biological processes run at two times their normal speed, your are not effectuating an algebraic process, like multiply both the nominator and the denominator by the same number, and the original number will not change.
Biological, and certainly psychological processes are what they are because of their rhythm, change the rhythm, and you will make organs work two times harder, age two times faster, and emotions completely change from quite to frantic. — Hachem

Yes, but if materialism were true (which is what we have to assume for their explanation to make sense), then your subjective experience of time flowing at such and such a rate is created by the correlation of the speed of movements in your brain with the speed of movements outside your brain. If both of them increase at twice the speed, your subjective experience will not perceive the increase.

I already know the argument, and it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Ask biologists. — Hachem

Why do you say that?

Imagine for a moment that everything that happens in the current world speeds up to twice the speed. Objective time, as measured by the light clock, will appear to be the same. That is certain.

But will subjective time appear to flow twice as fast? I think so.

But a materialist determinist like Einstein wouldn't necessarily agree because if everything speeds up, the processes in the brain, which according to them are responsible for our subjective experience of time also speed up. So relative to their new speed, we will perceive no change in our subjective experience of time. That would be the argument I would say.

Because Time is not an objective phenomenon? In this I completely agree with Bergson. — Hachem

Well, physics obviously speaks about physical time that can be measured by a light clock which is invariant regardless of frame of reference.

This is indeed different than the experience of time which philosophy talks about. Why do you conflate the two?

Why?

Then you are expressing one of the contradictions Rich was warning about. — Hachem

Nope, Rich has a problem with SR, not with GR.

is that a yes? — Hachem

Yes.

How about space-time? Should it be elevated to an ontology? — Hachem

Spacetime effectively is GR.

This was the essential object that Bergson had to Relativity. Robbins raises the same objection.

It is one thing to say that the equations are useful. It is quite another to elevate the equations to an ontology. — Rich

It depends which equations you elevate to ontology. You should elevate the most general framework. In the case of gravity, this would be general relativity, and NOT special relativity or Newton's laws.

The assumptions you are worrying about are neither true nor false, but useful. That's why they are assumptions and postulates, and not truths.

There it goes. I'm confused. OK. I'm OK with that. As I said, I invite others to investigate and come to their own conclusions. — Rich

Yes, but this belies a complete misunderstanding of how science works. Science doesn't work by finding out what is "true". It works by approximating what is true. It says for this group of situations, things behave as if the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees because the curvature of spacetime is almost 0.

I say drop SR and all of its implications including no preferred frame of reference. — Rich

When you say this, it's just as silly as telling me to drop Euclid's 5th Postulate when doing Euclidean geometry because it's not true. Absurd.

Yes, it's not true. But that assumption approximates local conditions sufficiently such that it is useful.

I say drop SR and all of its implications including no preferred frame of reference. — Rich

It seems you are confused. When I assume that the internal angles of a triangle are 180 degrees and proceed to calculate using that assumption, I don't actually think it's true. Absolutely not. I think it's an approximation of the truth, which is good enough to give me an estimate for the answer that I'm looking for with sufficient precision for my needs.

All of the implications of Newton's theories contradict SR. You can say there is a preferred frame a reference, then say there isn't, and then say they is. Actually, you can, because that is exactly what Relativists are doing. — Rich

Sure. So what? Newton isn't applicable where SR is applicable, BUT SR is applicable where Newton is applicable. Likewise, SR isn't applicable where GR is applicable, but GR is applicable where SR is applicable.

Exactly how many areas of the universe are without gravitational space-time?

Really, must we go through this? — Rich

None, that's why SR, much like Newton's theory and Euclidean geometry provide USEFUL approximations. They're easier to work with and calculate than their more complex parents.

Whoops! All those books on SR need to be pulled from the library immediately. This can be a PR nightmare. What should we do about the information on the Internet? — Rich

Are you doing this on purpose?! Do all books on Newton's theories have to be dropped out of the library because his theory has been replaced by GR?! Do we need to get rid of Euclid's Elements because Euclidean geometry has been replaced by Non-Euclidean geometry (which by the way, also includes Euclidean geometry itself?)?

It's as silly as asking why we still calculate using Newton... well, because it works if space is locally flat, which happens to be the case around here on Earth. So why do we calculate using SR? Because it works around here on Earth where spacetime is relatively flat, and for non-accelerating reference frames. Whenever there is an acceleration - such as your almost speed of light train stopping in the middle of the tunnel - you can no longer apply SR.

I suggest then that SR be dropped and all that it implies. That will really eliminate the contradictions! — Rich

SR has been dropped when GR has been adopted. Really... you seem behind on science.

The only reason SR is taught is the same reason Euclidean geometry is taught. They are applicable in specific circumstances, but not in all. If you want something applicable in all circumstances, you go to GR and non-Euclidean geometry respectively.


See this? GR is in Space Curvature.

Space-time are defined differently in SR and GR. — Rich

Yes of course they are! What did you expect? It's like telling me that space is defined differently in Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometry. This of course doesn't change the fact that Euclidean geometry is nothing but a subset of Non-Euclidean geometry, just like SR is a subset of GR which applies only in a LIMITED set of circumstances/conditions.

I provided the link which clearly states the contradiction. — Rich

This one?

"The upshot of this is that free fall is inertial motion: an object in free fall is falling because that is how objects move when there is no force being exerted on them, instead of this being due to the force of gravity as is the case in classical mechanics.This is incompatible with classical mechanics and special relativity because in those theories inertially moving objects cannot accelerate with respect to each other, but objects in free fall do so. To resolve this difficulty Einstein first proposed that spacetime is curved. In 1915, he devised the Einstein field equations which relate the curvature of spacetime with the mass, energy, and any momentum within it." — Rich

That 'contradiction' was resolved by GR. That's why GR was invented.