I do think he was right but I don't see how or even why he came to the conclusions he did?There's nothing in classical physics that suggests time is not constant.
>>16852281there is. the EM wave equation suggests it. the speed of light is 1 over the square root of two EM constants that explain how electromagnetism works.Since the laws of electromagnetism are the same no matter at which speed you are, that means the speed of light is the same no matter at which speed you are.speed is space over time, so if you want the speed of light to remain constant, the time measured must change depending on your speed
>>16852281>There's nothing in classical physics that suggests time is not constantspeed of wave solutions to maxwell's equations in free space, my nigga
>>16852281It's very much suggested by classical physics as anon mentioned. Lots of people were probably on the same track regarding special relativity. General relativity is quite an achievement but the basic principle comes from taking SR to its logical conclusion even if it seems a bit weird.
>>16852281Look up the history of electromagnetism, Einstein didn't come up with his ideas out of the blue, and he would be the first to say that.
If time is not constant, and space and time are just derivatives of each other, then space isn't constant either.
>>16852288>that means the speed of light is the same*holds up piece of glass*
>>16852576I was just thinking about that experiment myself, the one with the super cooled liquid that slowed down the light beam a bit right?
>>16852281Special Relativity basically fixes CM to make it compatible with EM
