>>12613278Are YOU retarded?
>Absolute time, true and mathematical, is by its own nature without relation to anything external, and flows uniformly.I did misread that he called duration absolute time, rather than relative, though. It doesn't matter, relativity is petty bickering about putting RELATIVE time on a pedestal over ABSOLUTE time.
>Ah, you're just bad at writing.I'm not.
Newton says that relative space isn't deformed or stretched relative to absolute space, so they are "the same in appearence and magnitude", special and general relativity say that it does, so relative space changes in appearence and magnitude relative to absolute space, i.e. it is deformed and stretched.
Nothing about it mathematically implies the absence or presence of absolute space and time.
There is nothing stopping you from tacking on absolute space and time onto relativity (a preferred reference frame) either, other than pouting relativists saying that you can't due to their philosophical leanings. Non-relativistic quantum theories are criticised due their supposed irreconciliability with relativity, yet what is irreconciliable is the philosophical requirement of not having a preferred frame of reference. Do you really think the universe cares how you sort out your symbols when you describe it?
Leibniz thought only relative time and space mattered, but the distinction for Galilean physics didn't matter as much, as passing from absolute to relative space was trivial. As you said:
>He assumed absolute space, but it doesn't influence the motion of things, since his laws are Galilei-covariant.That's a fact, it's a mathematical property of his laws, as it is of relativity that they are invariant under Lorentz transformation. But why should we take a mathematical property as an axiom?
Now that difference matters in order to branch out physical theories, why are we only allowed to explore the relativist branch, due to not scientific matters, but sociological bickering among physicists?
