This is Essay XXIII of Mr. Stolyarov’s series, “A Rational Cosmology,” which seeks to present objective, absolute, rationally grounded views of terms such as universe, matter, volume, space, time, motion, sound, light, forces, fields, and even the higher-order concepts of life, consciousness, and volition. See the index of all the essays in “A Rational Cosmology” here.
The uniform, absolute nature of time, demonstrated in “Time as an Absolute Quality,” implies a fundamental logical error at the core of the very foundation of post-Classical physics, namely, Einsteinian Relativity, which holds that the accumulation of time depends on the location and state of the observer.
A rejection of the conceptual core of Relativity does not, however, automatically imply a rejection of what valid observations Albert Einstein’s scientific framework may have implied.
One such (hypothetical) observation may be that astronauts in a spaceship that flies at extremely high speeds are not susceptible to the processes of bodily decay in as small an amount of time as those individuals who remain on Earth.
It may also be true that these astronauts’ organisms’ capacity to react to their environment (and perceive their environment) during a longer period of time will be roughly equal to the Earth-dwellers’ reaction and perception capacities during a shorter period of time.
In other words, the individual alterations of non-temporal qualities of particular entities may conceivably be in accord with Einstein’s propositions, as is the task of experimental physics to verify. But giving Einstein credit here does not excuse the error at the core of his theory, namely, the proposition that time itself is somehow relative to the observer.
Neither the degree of a man’s senescence nor the level of activity with which his brain responds to the environment around him is inherently bound to the passage of particular time intervals.
The above two processes are relationships and thus, in order to occur, must occur within some amount of time, but there is no universal restriction that states that a man born in 1980 will have gray hair, wrinkles, and poor vision in 2060. That is, the opposite scenario is conceivable, even if it is not encountered due to the peculiar technological deficiencies of our era.
Being eighty-years-old does not necessarily mean being senescent, and a thirty-year-old astronaut sent at near-light speeds into space in 2010 will not return in 2060 being thirty-years-old; he will be eighty-years-old, though his bodily form will be more typically encountered among thirty-year-olds than eighty-year-olds.
Though his biological functions will be less impaired by the passage of time than those of Earth-dwellers, the astronaut will still have accumulated the same age between 2010 and 2060as someone who had remained on Earth during that time. To oppose this fact is to espouse the logical error of “relative time,” which is not even necessary to support the possibility of the validity of some of the empirical implications of Einstein’s theory.
Because I have explained the scenario of the astronaut’s presence at near-light speeds without referring to the “relativity” of time, it follows that, by Occam’s Razor, the concept of relative time is superfluous to Einstein’s model, at least in this scenario. Einstein would have performed marvelously and yielded insights of remarkable accuracy if he, in the capacity of a physicist, had stayed within the bounds of physics, a specific-observational science, and not ventured to make generalizations which properly pertain to cosmology, a field of metaphysics and the rightful province of philosophy.
Read other parts of “A Rational Cosmology” by clicking here.