Calexico
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Posts
- 1,849
- Likes
- 17
My English teacher is trying to convince us that there is no such thing as time. The past, present, and future are a conception used by humans because we can't comprehend the "truth". This truth is that all things exist at once and all things happen at once. People may think that they are acting on past experience but really aren't. She used Einstein as backing for this. My question is just, has Albert Einstein actually stated this?
The main things I found with a quick Wikipedia search (I am really clueless about Einstein) is the Theory of Relativity and the resulting Relativity of Simultaneity. Relativity of simultaneity, if I understood correctly, means that something that you think is happening at the same time is not happening at the same time depending on the frame of reference. The fact that he would even talk about simultaneity seems to contradict what my teacher tried to use as evidence to support that there is no such thing as time. If Einstein believed that there was no such thing as time, then all is simultaneous regardless of relativity.
So my end question is... does one of Albert Einstein's theories state that there is no such thing as time?
This is from a simple 9th grade Honors English class. We are reading Siddhartha by Herman Hesse, and she was talking about this because Siddhartha discovers that there is no such thing as time using the metaphor of the river. The stuff that is down the river is there even now. The stuff that is up the river is there at that same moment. I understand the metaphor but I don't see the proof.
PS. This teacher and I share a mutual hatred of each other.
PPS. My understanding of relativity of simultaneity might be overly simplistic or completely wrong. Sorry if it is.
PPPS. I don't mind the book stating this. I can suspend my disbelief for the story. But I don't want my English teacher teaching it unless this is like an accepted idea. I don't want her teaching it anyways because A) She's supposed to be teaching us English and B) I don't like her
Oh yeah, and there's always the possibility that she is also just using suspension of disbelief and is assuming that we are to do the same. Although the way she teaches doesn't really imply that at all and she's never talked to us about it.
The main things I found with a quick Wikipedia search (I am really clueless about Einstein) is the Theory of Relativity and the resulting Relativity of Simultaneity. Relativity of simultaneity, if I understood correctly, means that something that you think is happening at the same time is not happening at the same time depending on the frame of reference. The fact that he would even talk about simultaneity seems to contradict what my teacher tried to use as evidence to support that there is no such thing as time. If Einstein believed that there was no such thing as time, then all is simultaneous regardless of relativity.
So my end question is... does one of Albert Einstein's theories state that there is no such thing as time?
This is from a simple 9th grade Honors English class. We are reading Siddhartha by Herman Hesse, and she was talking about this because Siddhartha discovers that there is no such thing as time using the metaphor of the river. The stuff that is down the river is there even now. The stuff that is up the river is there at that same moment. I understand the metaphor but I don't see the proof.
PS. This teacher and I share a mutual hatred of each other.
PPS. My understanding of relativity of simultaneity might be overly simplistic or completely wrong. Sorry if it is.
PPPS. I don't mind the book stating this. I can suspend my disbelief for the story. But I don't want my English teacher teaching it unless this is like an accepted idea. I don't want her teaching it anyways because A) She's supposed to be teaching us English and B) I don't like her
Oh yeah, and there's always the possibility that she is also just using suspension of disbelief and is assuming that we are to do the same. Although the way she teaches doesn't really imply that at all and she's never talked to us about it.