@maxdancona,
Quote:No one imagined time dilation until Enstein
Because science is not based on imaginations.
If you think that Einstein's intuition was right, then prove that time exists.
Mathematical calculations are invalid without a fact backing up their amounts.
Like, you can say a^n+b^n=c^n (Fermat's last theorem)
A dude from England said that he solved that equation, and he used methods other than numbers like elliptic curves...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem
Quote:On 24 October 1994, Wiles submitted two manuscripts, "Modular elliptic curves and Fermat's Last Theorem"[136] and "Ring theoretic properties of certain Hecke algebras",[137] the second of which was co-authored with Taylor and proved that certain conditions were met that were needed to justify the corrected step in the main paper. The two papers were vetted and published as the entirety of the May 1995 issue of the Annals of Mathematics. These papers established the modularity theorem for semistable elliptic curves, the last step in proving Fermat's Last Theorem, 358 years after it was conjectured.
However, if I ask you to solve a^n+b^n+c^n using grains of rice to verify empirically the answer of Wiles, then we know that the whole thing is pure imagination.
Having that Einstein based his theory on one experiment with lots of errors and wrong result (Michelson Morley) and a common belief or conventional idea that time flows, when in reality doesn't even exist, we have the same result as we do with Fermat's last theorem... Relativity is pure fiction, a good entertainment to play with numbers and symbols like crazy, but nothing real from it.
Intuitions does go wrong.
This is highly recognized by psychology that intuition is not always right.
https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/06/14/when-our-intuition-leads-us-to-bad-decisions/
Quote:Six years ago, Malcolm Gladwell released a book entitled Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. In his usual style, Gladwell weaves stories in-between descriptions of scientific research the support his hypothesis that our intuition can be surprisingly accurate and right.
One year ago, authors Daniel J. Simons and Christopher F. Chabris, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education not only had some choice words for Gladwell’s cherry-picking of the research, but also showed how intuition probably only works best in certain situations, where there is no clear science or logical decision-making process to arrive at the “right” answer....
Reasoned analysis, however, works best in virtually every other situation. Which, as it turns out, is most situations where big life decisions come into play.
Gladwell also argues that intuition is not always right....
Intuition is like that — we can’t trust it instinctually, as Gladwell suggests, because it is so often just plain wrong. And we can’t know ahead of time when it’s likely to be wrong in a really, really bad way...
Intuition has its place in the world. But believing it is a reliable cognitive device in most situations that we should trust more often than not is sure to get you into trouble. Relying more often on intuition instead of reasoning is not something that I believe is supported by our current psychological understanding and research.
When I reason and verify the veracity of relativity, the existence of time, the idea that speed will affect time not so the moving body, that light never decelerates, and etc. etc... definitively the intuition of Einstein was completely wrong when confronted with reality.
In science, reasoning wins over intuition based on illusions, as it is the case of the inventor of relativity.
