It's about time.

[Paradigmer]

Hmmm.... Like to walk with me for an adventure of the scientific revolution of our time? Haha.

They say yes. You're walking along, it's time to move in for the kill. Go get 'em Tiger! Whaddya say?

Anyway, with regard to what Einstein believed, few people have been more quoted out of context, misquoted or simply had things attributed to them which he never said. Everybody wants Einstein on their side and it is possible to make a case for Einstein holding practically any position. One of my favourite quotes re time is "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." I used that on a slide show I was doing before lockdown: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

Love your comic-style presentation Will, it was interesting as well as educating for even the twelve-year-old.

Thanks for suggesting how to present my abstracts in the manner as demonstrated with your example.

There was a cartoonist who was much into the UVS article on "The paradoxical of nature". He has a series of comic-style presentations to express the notions of paradox with his philosophical hue.

This "WHITE RABBIT" is one his cartoon series presentation.

He considered the "infinite mirrors" is a metaphor for expressing the delusion in a paradox, and how to break out of it.

I wished I have the presentation skills like yours.

[AlexW]

Absolute time, also called chronometric time, gives us distinct measurements and points of reference that refers to the objective reality.

Well, yeah... but there is nothing "absolute" about 5pm or 100 years ago... calling these (invented) reference points absolute time is nothing but a misnomer.

The contemporary mainstream Einsteinian posited time is a reified relativistic time that merely refers to its subjective reality.

The OP unequivocally refuted the reified relativistic time when it is referred to the objective reality.

To refute it one would have to conduct the experiment in objective reality - otherwise it is only a subjective refutation...
As I see it, there is no way to prove anything - eg: describe the outcome of an experiment - outside of ones subjective (mind-made) reality...

Your subjective reality is nothing but an idea/belief about a "reality" experienced from your personal point of view, it is constructed from your interpretations of what reality is meant to be (and a few thousand/million/billion subjects agreeing on an idea doesn't make it true).
Even the belief of there being an "objective reality" is part of your subjective reality - its not more than an unproven idea (and it will never be proven - as all that your mind has access to, is its very own subjective/constructed reality).

Moreover, this was experimentally proven with the muon experiment as observed with the physical relativistic transformation of the objects that had occurred in the objective reality.

Just because something (muon decay) is measured it doesn't mean that it is not part of your subjective reality anymore.

As thus, the Einsteinian TOR confuses its subjective reality as the objective reality with its reified time for all its relativistic propositions in a world of its fantasized realm.

This is what most humans do all the time (and not only with "time", but with every conceptual interpretation that arises as thought).

Do you believe in separate objects existing in their own right? Do they actually exist outside of our subjective reality?
If so, then why? We never experience any separate object directly, so why believe in these things actually existing (besides practical matters - eg: language based communication)?

[Paradigmer]

Do you believe in separate objects existing in their own right? Do they actually exist outside of our subjective reality?

You above quote is founded on your misnomer.

This summarizes your entire response are based on this misnomer.

Subjective reality is what people hypothesized to assimilate the objective reality.

We exist in objective reality. Period.

[AlexW]

You above quote is founded on your misnomer.

How? I called the term "absolute time" a misnomer...

Subjective reality is what people hypothesized to assimilate the objective reality.

Yes... but even your statement is only part of your "Subjective reality" - it has no counterpart in (what you call) "objective reality".
I am not saying that there is only "subjective reality" - I am saying that all you can know conceptually is this "subjective reality" - it is mind made, thought up ... nothing else.
That some kind of objective reality exists before/beyond this subjective reality, is an idea that you employ, based on the beliefs that define your subjective reality. There is no evidence for "objectivity" outside your mind/thoughts/interpretations.

We exist in objective reality. Period.

So you say... but this statement is again part of your acquired, subjective interpretation of direct experience (if anything at all, then I would say: direct experience = objective reality --- the only problem being: there are no objects present in direct experience)

[Paradigmer]

You above quote is founded on your misnomer.

How? I called the term "absolute time" a misnomer...

You have to slowly figure that out.

A statement by uwot is suitable here:

Don't worry; we're all in there somewherere.

A recommendation is carefully read the first post of this thread thoroughly without preconceived ideas.

[AlexW]

A recommendation is carefully read the first post of this thread thoroughly without preconceived ideas.

Good idea... I wonder how anyone could do that (reading anything without employing preconceived ideas).
I guarantee, it’s perfectly impossible.

You might be able to suspend belief to a degree, but your basic ideas of existence (eg I exist in objective reality) will still be at work... you cannot Interpret anything without a certain, fundamental framework.

[Paradigmer]

A recommendation is carefully read the first post of this thread thoroughly without preconceived ideas.

Good idea... I wonder how anyone could do that (reading anything without employing preconceived ideas).
I guarantee, it’s perfectly impossible.

You might be able to suspend belief to a degree, but your basic ideas of existence (eg I exist in objective reality) will still be at work... you cannot Interpret anything without a certain, fundamental framework.

I believe there is a higher-order reality that transcends our objective reality, but this is two separate issues. And a proposed subjective reality that assimilates the objective reality, is yet another issue.

IMO, it is definitely possible to construe an observation in the objective reality without the preconceived idea of a hardcore belief.

An example is the perception of the morning Sun that rises in the east from the horizon.

Sunrise is a delusional observation perceived in a subliminally obfuscated manner; the Sun does not rise like it apparently seems to be. This is merely a perception on a rotating Earth that renders its relative motion illusion in its delusion.

The subliminal natural negation of its cognitive paradox, is caused by its observation in a localized perspective on an apparently motionless Earth that actually rotates.

If one cannot put aside the hardcore belief of geocentrism and its preconceived ideas construed in its subjective reality, he would not be able to understand the actuality of sunrise in the objective reality.

[AlexW]

IMO, it is definitely possible to construe an observation in the objective reality without the preconceived idea of a hardcore belief.

Sure.
You simply have to look without applying any interpretations.

If one cannot put aside the hardcore belief of geocentrism and its preconceived ideas construed in its subjective reality, he would not be able to understand the actuality of sunrise in the objective reality.

How do you actually observe the "sunrise in objective reality"?

All you have at your disposal is direct experience - in this case: visual perception - and then comes thought and interprets the seen...

Without thought - without conceptual interpretation - there is no sunrise.
There are only "fluctuating colors" (and even the word "color" is already a concept we have learned and is as such not part of what you call "objective reality").

As I see it, you still mix up your acquired, conceptual interpretations - which is what "subjective reality" actually is - and direct experience "of" reality.
If you care to look, you will find that there is not the slightest evidence of objectivity in direct experience - all objectivity and relativity is added on via thought.

The question is: Is our basic interpretation of there being an "objective reality" actually true.
To find out one would have to go back to the basics - to simple direct experience and see whats actually "there" and what is only an interpretation.

Science is not more than an interpretation of what is actually experienced - we try to get closer to "reality", but what if this reality is not objective? (as direct experience actually reveals) Are any of our scientific interpretations still true?

Anyway, I think we should stop this discussion right here, it is not on topic and I’m sure uwot would appreciate it if people would keep discussing the OP (and not subjective vs objective reality). Sorry uwot. Wasn’t my intention to highjack the thread.

[Paradigmer]

How do you actually observe the "sunrise in objective reality"?

All you have at your disposal is direct experience - in this case: visual perception - and then comes thought and interprets the seen...

Without thought - without conceptual interpretation - there is no sunrise.
There are only "fluctuating colors" (and even the word "color" is already a concept we have learned and as such not part of what you call "objective reality").

As I see it, you still mix up your acquired, conceptual interpretations - which is what "subjective reality" actually is - and direct experience "of" reality.
If you care to look, you will find that there is not the slightest evidence of objectivity in direct experience - all objectivity and relativity is added on via thought.

The question is: Is our basic interpretation of there being an "objective reality" actually true.
To find out one would have to go back to the basics - to simple direct experience and see whats actually "there" and what is only an interpretation.

Science is not more than an interpretation of what is actually experienced - we try to get closer to "reality", but what if this reality is not objective? (as direct experience actually reveals) Are any of our scientific interpretations still true?

I see where you are coming from.

I agree with the perception of color is merely a biological interpretation of our senses. And there are features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses in the objective reality.

But the philosophy of conciousness does not entail the said relativistic time is elastic in the objective reality.

The Sun does not rise as perceived is in fact an actuality of this objective reality; your are off the course here by suggesting the philosophy of consciousness for the observations.

The OP has had squarely debunked the idea of elastic relativistic time as professed by the Einsteinian TOR, and unequivocally showed that it is not an actuality in the objective reality; this is what matters in this thread for the essence of time in the objective reality.

The relativistic time of the Einsteinian TOR is nothing more than a myth.

Also, this thread is not about the ontology of time.

But I believe many could be interested if you start a thread for discussing the ontology of time in metaphysics.

[AlexW]

Yes, agree, not on topic.
Funny... I just edited my previous post to suggest we stop this discussion as its not ok to highjack this thread.

[uwot]

I was under the impression that the light we currently see from the sun is actually from approximately 8 seconds ago...

Well 8 minutes as it happens, but yeah, we're seeing things as they were some time ago.

Not quite sure how this works, but is it possible that some distant observer in the future will see our sun go super nova as it is predicted to go?

Yup.

when Betelguese or Antares go supernova, if we could see an orbiting planet (no light source I know) as that star expanded, would we see the star get closer to said planet?

Yeah but that's nothing to do with space shrinking.

suitable vantage point...

when you were young, you couldn't reach the door knob

I've always been tall for my age.

[uwot]

...thegravity explanation by Lord Kelvin with his aether hypothesis and the vortex theory popular in his time, is indeed the made up the sort of 'stuff' in the space that has mechanical properties. He postulated gravity is a pushed-in mechanical effect of aether, and I absolutely agreed with him.

My own favourite explanation of gravity is that it's refraction. If you look at how starlight is bent around the sun, as demonstrated in Arthur Eddington's 1919 Principe expedition for example, it is indistinguishable from the everyday bending of light as it passes through different densities. For simplicity, you can treat 'gravity' as a medium and, like Einstein, save yourself the bother of explaining how mass warps spacetime.

[uwot]

It basically dissolves into absolute standstill - its not moving at all and as such gives up all its objective qualities (like a wave that reaches its highest/lowest point and - exactly at the crest/trough - remains motionless for an imperceptible tiny fraction of its existence)

The thing is, I could imagine someone else saying that the moment that a wave dissolves into absolute standstill is when it is flattest and that for an imperceptible fraction of it's existence, it is then at a standstill. Think of a guitar string; it's flat and it isn't moving - there is no wave until it is plucked and it is precisely at the crest/trough that it is defined as a wave.

[Paradigmer]

...thegravity explanation by Lord Kelvin with his aether hypothesis and the vortex theory popular in his time, is indeed the made up the sort of 'stuff' in the space that has mechanical properties. He postulated gravity is a pushed-in mechanical effect of aether, and I absolutely agreed with him.

My own favourite explanation of gravity is that it's refraction. If you look at how starlight is bent around the sun, as demonstrated in Arthur Eddington's 1919 Principe expedition for example, it is indistinguishable from the everyday bending of light as it passes through different densities. For simplicity, you can treat 'gravity' as a medium and, like Einstein, save yourself the bother of explaining how mass warps spacetime.

I agreed with the refraction of gradient density could explain gravity.

Nonetheless, I disagreed with the mass of an object is the causality for the gradient density that renders the effect of gravity with its refraction in the different densities; it is the gravitational singularity of matter in the object that does it as a point mass.

Despite the refraction of gradient density could explain the mechanism that causes gravity, it could not actually explain the causality of the gravitational force.

The gravitational singularity manifested in the supermassive black hole to vortically warp the aetheric density around it, could explain how the stars are whirling in a nested manner to revolve around the Galactic Center of the Milky Way galaxy in its aetheric (space-time) vortex. This explains the causality of the galactic induced gravity in the objects it encapsulates.

The aetheric (space-time) vortex model with the paradigm shift of a barycentric Solar System model that explains gravity as a repulsive force of its mass effect manifested in an aetheric medium, is fundamentally different from the Newtonian Sun-centric Solar System model that explains gravity as an attractive force with the mass of the physical object.

BTW, the Einsteinian GR is not valid for explaining gravity, it merely states its prediction breaks down at the gravitation singularity when the gravitation force becomes infinite.

I agreed the postulated abstract of the space-time vortex model by Einstein is too mind bending, and unthinkable in the manner it was presented. IMO, this creation of his space-time vortex model could be the consequences of the aether hypothesis was disregarded during his time.

“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” - Albert Einstein

However, despite I favor simplicity explaintations, it must not be simpler.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” - Albert Einstein

I understand you are doing a great job to vindicate the original works of Einstein.

[Paradigmer]

Yes, agree, not on topic.
Funny... I just edited my previous post to suggest we stop this discussion as its not ok to highjack this thread.

Thank you for being nice.