Can /sci/ explain why it isn't a load of bullshit- that is, why it isn't purely neurological? The passing of time could be set at a constant imaginary speed faster than time, because time doesn't exist, right?
I'm probably just a dumbass that doesn't understand it, so a simple explanation would be nice too
philosophy board when
>>7971478
whoops, meant faster than light, not time
because of einsteins law of electric divulsion particles cannot subside equidistant between electrons. That is to say that time cannot be represented as two prefixes of a particle.
oh, there's already a thread about this
sorry guys, assumed /sci/ wouldn't typically question this shit
>>7971529
In what sense? Human perception of change, or the past and inevitable future states? In the second case, couldn't any imaginable scenario be a part of "time"?
>>7971478
Let's say you and a friend set a couple of very long, identical, pendula in motion with the same amplitudes. Your friend then takes his pendulum on board a very fast train after this train reaches full speed it passes you and you observe your friends pendulum, but you see something strange, it's swinging (significantly!) slower than yours. However if your friend was recording the period of the pendulum during the same time as you were observing it, then he would have recorded a period as if it were stationary on the platform. This is relativistic time dilation.
This sounds abstract, but there was an experiment in similar vain to this, it's called the Hafele-Keating experiment. They synchronised two atomic clocks, left one on the ground and took the other on a trip around the world on an aeroplane, when they got back they noticed that the two clocks now disagreed and that disagreement was completely accounted for by special and general relativity.
