It's not that I'm ignoring you. I spend 11 hours a day with my commute and at work. I only get a little more than an hour to spend posting.
Fair enough.
I still wonder, though, why did you spend all of your limited time replying to the people who've been bickering and teasing you for months, rather than have a discussion with the guy who's actually interested to listen what you have to say.
But I suppose it's your choice. I really can't hold that against you, because it isn't my business. So let us go on with the discussion, shall we?
The alternative frame work is visualization taught to me by Einstein himself through his writings. It worked very well for him.
Wait a minute... What do you mean by "it worked very well for him"?
First of all, Einstein relied heavily on mathematics. And you know what? He hated it! He actually had to ask his colleagues for help in converting his raw ideas of general relativity into a working mathematical model.
Also, most of Einstein's "visualizations" were anything but intuitive. Indeed, the reason he is regarded as such a genius, is that he was able to go beyond "common sense" and reach the correct conclusions even when they seem "absurd".
Do you know what Einstein's two postulates of relativity are? One - that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. And Two - that the speed of light is constant, no matter how fast the source is moving.
The first postulate may be common-sensical, but the second certainly isn't. If I run away from you at 99% the speed-of-light and shine a flashlight at you, the light still reaches you at the speed of light. Does that sounds common sensical to you? Of-course not! It's outright absurd! Yet Einstein chose it as one of the cornerstones of relativity, and you know why? Because it was a direct logical consequence of Maxwell's Equations.
See, when Einstein had to choose between common sense and mathematics, he chose mathematics. All his visualizations came LATER. His wonderful thought experiments already started from the assumption that Maxwell's Equations do work.
And guess what? Einstein was right. Even though his theory was based on zero experimental data (Einstein wasn't aware of the Michaelson-Morely Experiment), he correctly predicted the effects of time dilation. He correctly deduced E=mc², which is the principle underlying the atomic bomb and nuclear powerplants. Einstein's work is an excellent demonstration of the power of mathematics.
A lot of the time math gets the credit for data that was actually gathered by trial and error. If math was a good predictive tool, then there would be no need for any further experimentation at all.
Well... Yes and no.
Yes, sometimes trial and error is needed in order to find what the correct mathematical model is. But once you have your model, it can be used for a vast array of different situations.
For example, take Schordinger's equation. The equation itself easily fits on a T-shirt, yet you can use it to predict the outcome of ANY chemical reaction. You can use it to calculate the energy levels of helium, or the boiling point of water, or the number of calories in a ounce of sugar. One simple equation rules all of chemistry. That is what I mean, when I'm saying "math works".
Now, if you look at Schrodinger's equation closely, you'll see that it is really nothing more than an abstract construct. Schrodinger himself admitted that much. It's nothing more than a recepie to get the correct results. But what a recepie! It's like having a cookbook which can tell you how to make every dreamable dish you can think of.
Yes, and the key I believe is: What is time?
Well, maybe the key is the answer to that question. Do you have an answer?
