If we model the universe as a phenomenon of perception rather than perception-independent existence, then it makes sense that the conditions which constitute motion (position changing over time) could have a lower limit in stillness (position constant over time) and an upper limit in absolute motion or c (any/all positions instantaneously).
On Apr 21, 4:32 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > INTRODUCTION > Modified 01-10-11 > > Hans J. Zweig, With a PhD from Stanford, a masters degree > from Brown and a B.A. from University of Rochester: > # > Newtonian physics is not the ultimate truth about the universe, > but neither is Einstein's Relativity. Newton did not know, or > anticipate, > an upper bound to motion. Einstein cannot simply have it that all > motion > is relative and at the same time that there is a unique hard upper > limit, c. > > Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory (SRT) attempts to solve the > problem, > but it is invalid, as can be shown using several distinct approaches: > (1) through a logical analysis of the important concepts and > thought experiments, > (2) through recently available empirical results in astronomy, and > (3) through a physical/ mathematical analysis of the foundation of > SRT. > . . . . . . . . . . . . > > The ultimate truth is still hidden from us but is somewhere > between these extremes. > > http://www.aquestionoftime.com/intro.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
