1. Critique of the statement: “Einstein’s theory of relativity completely reshaped how we understand time.”

Your reliance on the relativistic interpretation of time represents an overconfidence in its supremacy, which is scientifically problematic for the following reasons:

A1. Misinterpretation of “natural time”

Einstein’s concept of “natural time” constitutes a reinterpretation of classical time that is inconsistent with its original definition. Relativity treats time as a fundamental entity, analogous to mass and energy, whereas time in reality emerges from changes in natural mass and energy.

The time dilation equation:

t ′= t/√1−(v/c)^2

where:

t = proper time (measured in the moving frame)

t' = dilated time (measured by a stationary observer)

v = relative velocity

c = speed of light

The key issue lies in applying the Lorentz factor 1/1−(v/c)^2 to the standardized scale of proper time t to obtain t'. This operation changes the scale of proper time, presenting t′>t, which violates the standardization of proper time:

t < t′, but t ′≠ t + Δt

since Δt is measured on the same scale as t, while t′ is not. Therefore, a standard clock designed for proper time cannot meaningfully measure t'; the relativistic “dilated time” is, in effect, a misrepresentation of an error in proper time as a physical phenomenon.

2. Critique of the statement: “Your motion through space directly influences how you move through time.”

A2. Flawed causality

Motion cannot influence the progression of time. Time itself is the reference frame in which physical events occur. It progresses independently of motion or gravitational potential; physical changes (events) are measured relative to time, not vice versa.

3. Critique of the statement: “If you’re standing still, you’re moving almost entirely through time, aging at the fastest rate nature allows.”

A3. Misleading personalization of time

Time is not personal but universal. Regardless of motion or rest, your surroundings are continuously changing, and time references both you and your environment simultaneously. Time emerges from the collective changes in the universe, making it cosmic in nature. Its progression is uniform across the universe and independent of local motion.

4. Critique of the statement: “But as you move faster through space, part of that motion is ‘spent’ on distance, leaving less for time. That means your clock ticks more slowly compared to someone at rest.”

A4. Frivolous presentation

This statement misrepresents the relationship between motion and time. It attributes causality to motion affecting time rather than recognizing time as an emergent measure of change. It is inconsistent and does not merit serious discussion.

5. Critique of the statement: “Scientists have proven this using atomic clocks on planes, satellites, and even astronauts aboard the ISS. GPS itself would fail without constant corrections for these relativistic effects.”

A5. Misinterpretation of experimental corrections

Corrections in atomic clocks, satellites, and GPS are made to adjust errors in time measurement, not to accommodate an actual physical dilation of time. Time dilation, as presented in relativity, would require a redesign of the time scale itself, which is not what these experiments accomplish. They demonstrate the need to correct for measurement discrepancies, not that “time itself” physically dilates.

Summary:

Relativistic time dilation, as currently presented, involves a conceptual and operational inconsistency: it treats errors in measurement as physical modifications of time, while standard clocks remain calibrated for proper time. In reality, time emerges from physical changes and progresses universally, independent of motion, velocity, or gravitational effects.

- Soumendra Nath Thakur

September 25, 2025.