What is "spacetime" really?

[arkain101]

How this particular theory of mine answers the opening question

 

 

I want to respond with some of my own theoretical views to this thread that I have been developing and have not yet mentioned before at any great detail levels.

 

Much of the discussion involved in this thread is about finding a satisfactory way to define certain observable "parts" of the universe. There are, that I see, two basic interpretations being brought up, of the whole of the universe. These two are the physical and non-physical interpratated parts of the universe.

 

This quote centers on what I am talking about.

As stated above, this thing (matter) turns out also to be nothing but resonating space too. so either matter and space are nothing or matter and space is a resonating energy system. either way, like it or not, they are of the same thing. they are either nothings or somethings. go make your choice.

 

Think about these two options for a moment.1)We consider space to be the concept of nothing and label it as non-physical and the matter located in that space to be something and physical 2)We consider space to be something and physical, while the matter located in that space to be nothing and non physical.

 

But as this above quote brings to light we may or may not have a preconception of what is physical, what is tangibly existent.

 

I purpose a possible solution to define certain observable "parts" of the universe. When we ask a question such as the one in the title of this thread as to what any identifiable physical system is made of (like space-time fabric), it may become an illogical query, such as asking what wood is made of, under the circumstances where the correct answer is that it is made of wood.

 

My solution is to focus on the understanding of what we use to enable something to be correctly labeled physical. Furthermore, to subject yourself to a perspective that physicality is relative.

 

I suggest beginning by considering that meaning resides in a spectrum. That it has a limit to how far it can be broken down and simplified. That beyond this limit of the spectrum meaning has reduced to the point it is lost. And On the opposite end of the spectrum a limit to how complex it can be made before no noticeable change of meaning can occur.

 

Not only this but what we label physical and non physical are elements of the meaning spectrum. This is to say, the universe from macro to micro is only but a meaning we contain that has purpose in relativeness to other meanings.

 

If we refer to the very conception of nothingness, such as space, it is the aspect of reality beyond the simplified limit of the meaning spectrum. And this is the reason why I would suggest we consider space nothingness, because it is the expression of meaning beyond that limit, and is thus, meaningless, or, can not have meaning attributed to it.

 

The beginning of physicality/ somethingness, begins with the beginning of meaning. This is where there is conception of location, distance, velocity, and time. And the limit of the spectrum is the most simple form of these conceptions which is a relative paired system. That is, the most simple form of meaning is contained in a minimum of two locations of space(beyond the limit). Which in this theoretical view is the same as saying a minimum of two locations is the first form of physicality made realized by meaning.

 

As we move to the other limit of the spectrum, the change of meaning increases at a specific perportion to the complexity and does so in such a way that the rate of change of complexity becomes increasingly more subtle when you move from the limit of meaning. (as said earlier: And On the opposite end of the spectrum a limit to how complex it can be made before no noticeable change of meaning can occur.)So, for example, as we begin adding more physical parts to the two part meaning limit, from 2, to 3, to 4, less and less local meaning in a relative system can be added or changed.

 

However, as we do so, as we move towards a more complex system of meaning, it instantly jumps to a new form of meaning. For example, we contemplate the most elemental partical system, but we can not complicate this system much further than its most basic state, so find we JUMP to a new form of meaning manifested out of couples or even quanta of these basic meanings. We follow this pattern where we say, quarks make nucleus', and nucleus' make atoms, and atoms make molecules, and molecules, make up objects and cells. Each change of meaning is a distinct level from each other level, and each level is a discrete meaning. There are very little inbetween conceptions of meaning.

 

Then we must ask thouroughly, do these meanings truly exist physically relative to themselves without the relative comparisons of other meanings? The intuitive response is that these discrete meanings are real and physical objects with or without any observers conception or contemplation to them, (ie, the universe will continue the way it does with or without your mind here to observe). But what is worth noting is that, space -a meaningless singular part beyond the spectrum of physicality- is still there, even if it is non physical. It is there because we contemplate it. We can naturally see the distinction of that which is on the spectrum, and that which is off the spectrum, and this very distinction is yet another meaning we can contimplate relative to the spectrum, but we run into meaninglessness when removing relative coentemplation.

 

Because we run into meaninglessness when removing relative contemplation, I beleive this acts as the example of how the universe exists when the observer is removed from the picture. Such that, it helps to validate that meaning is intwined with physicality, in such a way that predictions can be made and tested. That these predictions can suggest, you will always find the universe behaving in a way that meaning demands, because it is meaning that gives an event, anti-nothingness.

 

 

This is a very difficult subject to communicate. I felt I was struggling through, but I hope the pictures is pretty much conveyed even though it may be a little blurry.

[Doctordick]

To quote Michael, most responses to almost all threads are indeed “less-then-serious-or intelligent replies” and I suspect this thread is also headed down that same dark tunnel. That is why I made that suggestion via the “Creating a 'maturing' forum!” thread.

And, indeed it has proceeded “down that same dark tunnel”. I am moved to comment once more. :D

 

This thread is essentially concerned with an issue discussed in many places throughout the literature. There is a dichotomy in the philosophic world which is quite familiar to anyone with any reasonable knowledge of philosophy of science: the study of logical structures commonly referred to as “explanations” is called “epistemology” and the study of “what exists” is called “ontology”. Science is very much concerned with explaining the world we find ourselves in and thus falls almost entirely into the field of epistemology. Exactly what it is that is being explained (what exists) falls into the field of ontology. The reader should recognize that epistemology is the respected central issue of science whereas the subject of ontology has been essentially ignored by the hard scientists as being “metaphysics” (beyond physics).

 

It is at this point that we run into another very important insight which is buried in the frequently debated issue, “Is Metaphysics Possible?”.

The weak form of the thesis is this: metaphysical statements are meaningful, but human beings can never discover whether any metaphysical statement is true or false (or probable or improbable or warranted or unwarranted).

Thus it is quite widely held that establishing the validity of one's ontology is not possible and this is most probably the reason that the study of metaphysics has fallen into such disrepute. :)

 

Of course, science needs their ontology (what exists) as much as any field and they need to justify to themselves that the ontology they are working with is valid. With regard to this issue, “Science” (and here I refer to what is called the “scientific method”) generally makes the presumption that the validity of its ontology is a strong function of the success of the specific epistemology (that scientific explanation) based upon that ontology. By this means, the scientific community avoids the metaphysical question entirely. :)

 

The central issue of this thread is exactly such a metaphysical question: “What is spacetime-really?” It is very much an excellent example of the thoughtless phenomena which always seem to embroil such a discussion. If you read the thread, you will discover that the educated posters (all those who have a decent understanding of Einstein's relativity) invariably use the logical consequences of the epistemology as a defense of the validity of their ontology: i.e., they concentrate on the fact that the logical consequences of Einstein's “space-time” agree with the scientific experiments (their expectations) without ever confronting the actual ontological nature of the question.

 

The rest of the posters would certainly do exactly the same except for the simple fact that they cannot follow the required logic. The answer to the question is actually quite obvious to anyone who understands the underlying issue posed by the question. Einstein's “space-time” is no more than an ontological concept required by his “theory of relativity”.

 

Have fun (which I know you all will) -- Dick

[Michael Mooney]

Michael,

 

While we welcome alternative scientific theories here at Hypography, it's best that all scientific discussions adhere to the empirical standard (which includes perception, measurement, and objectivity).

 

The "transcendental perspective" is rather elusive as far as scientific inquiry is concerned. If we can test the hypothesis, it's scientific. In this case, we can not test the hypothesis.

 

You may very well be right that we can not perceive the complexity surrounding us, but unless we can devise an experiment capable of positive replication of results we can never be sure, empirically.

 

I'm a moderator, and I'm not laughing. Let's keep this thread scientific! :)

 

Hi freeztar,

I would like to know whether or not you think that an inquiry into the philosophical basis of relativity, vis-a-vis its subjective idealism component, is appropriate in a section labeled "Philosophy of Science."

As you know both Modest and Erasmus deny that there is any measure of "objective distance" between objects in space, but rather that "it all depends" on the relative velocities involved, i.e., velocities of the observed objects and the observer or observers in the context of the constancy of lightspeed.

 

Philosophically speaking... and I have posed this as a 'thought experiment', if humans had never evolved, there would be no "subjective component" to distances between objects.

Woulld the cosmos then cease to exist without human observers? A rather absurd philosophy in my opinion.

Of course, philosophical idealism as famously presented by Berkely, Hume, et.al. posits exactly that... that "It is all in our minds."

 

(The cliche' version is as follows: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, then it doesn't make any sound." But, of course sound waves are generated in the air whether any ears hear it or not.... "objectively speaking!))

 

So I have argued at length with both Modest and Erasmus who claim that, for instance , the well known average distances between sun and planets are not objectively true, but rather depend on the relativity of human perspecive.

 

Are you saying that such an argument is not appropriate here?... That "observer perspective" as per relativity is the indisputable truth beyond all question merely because it is is central to relativity?... that there is no such thing as "objective distance" or any other kind of "objectivity" transcending the limits of local human perception and lightspeed limit?

 

Thanks ahead for your time and thoughtful consideration/reply to this inquiry.

Michael

[freeztar]

Hi freeztar,

I would like to know whether or not you think that an inquiry into the philosophical basis of relativity, vis-a-vis its subjective idealism component, is appropriate in a section labeled "Philosophy of Science."

 

It would definitely be appropriate.

As you know both Modest and Erasmus deny that there is any measure of "objective distance" between objects in space, but rather that "it all depends" on the relative velocities involved, i.e., velocities of the observed objects and the observer or observers in the context of the constancy of lightspeed.

It's not just Modest and Erasmus! The overwhelming majority of scientists around the world agree on this fact. It's amply tested and irrefutably proven. It's all relative!

 

Philosophically speaking... and I have posed this as a 'thought experiment', if humans had never evolved, there would be no "subjective component" to distances between objects.

Woulld the cosmos then cease to exist without human observers? A rather absurd philosophy in my opinion.

Of course, philosophical idealism as famously presented by Berkely, Hume, et.al. posits exactly that... that "It is all in our minds."

I agree that it is a rather absurd abstraction.

 

(The cliche' version is as follows: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, then it doesn't make any sound." But, of course sound waves are generated in the air whether any ears hear it or not.... "objectively speaking!))

What's wrong with subjectivity?

So I have argued at length with both Modest and Erasmus who claim that, for instance , the well known average distances between sun and planets are not objectively true, but rather depend on the relativity of human perspecive.

It's not "human perspective". It's relative rest/time frame.

 

Relativity is no exception and this can be seen in any one of the numerous paradoxical thought experiments regarding the implications of relativity.

 

Are you saying that such an argument is not appropriate here?... That "observer perspective" as per relativity is the indisputable truth beyond all question merely because it is is central to relativity?... that there is no such thing as "objective distance" or any other kind of "objectivity" transcending the limits of local human perception and lightspeed limit?

 

I personally do not rule out such a possibility, but as a scientific skeptic I tend to only trust what can be perceived. It's easy, and fun, to imagine all sorts of possibilities in the universe, but that does not make them true. You might say that we are limited by our perception. I say we are empowered because of it. :)

 

 

 

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but its sinking

And racing around to come up behind you again

[Michael Mooney]

The intent of this post is to "sign off" with Watcher and Arkain. In the words od "Cool Hand Luke", "What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Rather than address both of your extensive posts above, I will select one example from each and reply.

 

Watcher:

as stated above, this thing (matter) turns out also to be nothing but resonating space too. so either matter and space are nothing or matter and space is a resonating energy system. either way, like it or not, they are of the same thing. they are either nothings or somethings. go make your choice.

 

I have been beating a dead horse here with the ontology of space as I understnd it as emptiness. Not that there is nothing in space anywhere (absurd) but that between "things" is empty space, no-thing. Nothing to curve, have shape, etc. "Things" *in space* "resonate", not space, which is and does nothing, including "expand" tho cosmic 'stuff' is expanding outward into empty, endless space.

 

Arkain... responding also to Watcher's quote above:

Think about these two options for a moment.1)We consider space to be the concept of nothing and label it as non-physical and the matter located in that space to be something and physical 2)We consider space to be something and physical, while the matter located in that space to be nothing and non physical.

 

I consider space to be nothing, not merely the concept of nothing. The label "non-physical" leaves open the possibility of space being "something" metaphysical or whatever. I will affirm that matter/energy/plama (of all kinds) is "something" and that wherever it is found is not empty space.

Option two is totally absurd and opposite to any reasonable version of reality. Then you (arkain) go on to propose the following:

My solution is to focus on the understanding of what we use to enable something to be correctly labeled physical. Furthermore, to subject yourself to a perspective that physicality is relative.

And your post goes on at length into what seems an infinite regress into the meaning of meaning itself, and the subjectivity of the meaning of words, starting from the assertion that what we mean by physical is merely relative.

 

Meaningful dialogue must start somewhere with common usage of the meaning of words.

I am not interestd in re-defining "physical' other than to acknowledge that matter and energy convert from one to the other occassiionally and that plasma is something of a transitional state between the two. They, and the more mysterious phenomena called 'dark matter" and "dark energy" (and perhaps unicorns!... no, not really!) constitute the "something *in* space, the latter remainging no-thing.

I have no interest in repeating, again and again, what i have just re-iterated to the point of tedium.

Therefore I have lost interest in further conversation on this topic with either of you.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

freeztar:

It's not just Modest and Erasmus! The overwhelming majority of scientists around the world agree on this fact. It's amply tested and irrefutably proven. It's all relative!

I do not dispute the predictive power of relativity for the ground it covers... Just that local perspective as per info conveyed by light is not the end all reality of cosmological perspective.

 

MM:

The cliche' version is as follows: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, then it doesn't make any sound." But, of course sound waves are generated in the air whether any ears hear it or not.... "objectively speaking!"

f:

What's wrong with subjectivity?

 

Nothing, as far as it goes. But you didn't address the contrast above. Do you think that "objectively speaking" it is reasonable to assume that sound waves are generated by the falling tree or do you subscribe to the philosophy of idealism which the cliche' illustrates... that there is no sound unless ears hear it? (Hmmm... Would squirrels' and birds' ears cound if no humans were around?)

 

It's not "human perspective". It's relative rest/time frame.

Do you think that there is such a thing as actual, objective (average) distance between, say the sun and the planets, or do you agree with Modest and Erasmus that it depends on observer point of view? This speaks directly to the subjective idealism component of relativity.

MM:

Are you saying that such an argument is not appropriate here?... That "observer perspective" as per relativity is the indisputable truth beyond all question merely because it is is central to relativity?... that there is no such thing as "objective distance" or any other kind of "objectivity" transcending the limits of local human perception and lightspeed limit?

f:

I personally do not rule out such a possibility, but as a scientific skeptic I tend to only trust what can be perceived. It's easy, and fun, to imagine all sorts of possibilities in the universe, but that does not make them true. You might say that we are limited by our perception. I say we are empowered because of it.

 

My scientific skepticism is based on my rejection of subjective idealism as a basis for science. In my language, it is objectively true that earth is an average of 93 (or so) million miles from sun and that the same *fact* can be stated in terms of earth-diameters, kilometers or light minutes as the actual "objective" distance that light travels (in this case) in 8+ minutes.

Do you agree with Modest and Erasmus that the above is all bogus in that ther is no "actual distance" because it depends on the the relativity of what can be observed within the framework of lightspeed?

This is a basic question very relevant to the "philosophy of science," specifically "Is there such a thing as "objectivity" in the above sense of distance measurement or in any other sense?

I say there is.

Michael

[modest]

And, indeed it has proceeded “down that same dark tunnel”. I am moved to comment once more. :D

 

This thread is essentially concerned with an issue discussed in many places throughout the literature. There is a dichotomy in the philosophic world which is quite familiar to anyone with any reasonable knowledge of philosophy of science: the study of logical structures commonly referred to as “explanations” is called “epistemology” and the study of “what exists” is called “ontology”. Science is very much concerned with explaining the world we find ourselves in and thus falls almost entirely into the field of epistemology. Exactly what it is that is being explained (what exists) falls into the field of ontology. The reader should recognize that epistemology is the respected central issue of science whereas the subject of ontology has been essentially ignored by the hard scientists as being “metaphysics” (beyond physics).

 

It is at this point that we run into another very important insight which is buried in the frequently debated issue, “Is Metaphysics Possible?”. Thus it is quite widely held that establishing the validity of one's ontology is not possible and this is most probably the reason that the study of metaphysics has fallen into such disrepute. :shrug:

 

Of course, science needs their ontology (what exists) as much as any field and they need to justify to themselves that the ontology they are working with is valid. With regard to this issue, “Science” (and here I refer to what is called the “scientific method”) generally makes the presumption that the validity of its ontology is a strong function of the success of the specific epistemology (that scientific explanation) based upon that ontology. By this means, the scientific community avoids the metaphysical question entirely. :lol:

 

The central issue of this thread is exactly such a metaphysical question: “What is spacetime-really?” It is very much an excellent example of the thoughtless phenomena which always seem to embroil such a discussion. If you read the thread, you will discover that the educated posters (all those who have a decent understanding of Einstein's relativity) invariably use the logical consequences of the epistemology as a defense of the validity of their ontology: i.e., they concentrate on the fact that the logical consequences of Einstein's “space-time” agree with the scientific experiments (their expectations) without ever confronting the actual ontological nature of the question.

 

The rest of the posters would certainly do exactly the same except for the simple fact that they cannot follow the required logic. The answer to the question is actually quite obvious to anyone who understands the underlying issue posed by the question. Einstein's “space-time” is no more than an ontological concept required by his “theory of relativity”.

 

Have fun (which I know you all will) -- Dick

 

Very good post Doctordick. You explain the state of things very well. I would probably argue that the success of the specific epistemology is a stronger indicator of ontology than you might, but your point is well-made.

 

~modest

[modest]

freeztar:

 

I do not dispute the predictive power of relativity for the ground it covers... Just that local perspective as per info conveyed by light is not the end all reality of cosmological perspective...

 

In my language, it is objectively true that earth is an average of 93 (or so) million miles from sun

 

Michael, your posts show absolutely no understanding of what special relativity is. Your notion that clocks would have to travel warp nine in SR to reach the sun in 50 seconds shows this. So there's really no point in you attacking relativity. You're attacking misconceptions and misunderstandings which does nothing to illuminate (or damage) the theory.

 

If you want to advance your position then do so. Space, distance, time are all naught—now what? Is there no way to judge how far two things are from one another? If there is a way (according to your proposed system) then what is it? How does it work?

 

In any case, please provide a scientific source claiming that the distance between astronomical bodies is absolute and not relative otherwise show how such a description works scientifically.

 

~modest

[watcher]

I have been beating a dead horse here with the ontology of space as I understand it as emptiness. Not that there is nothing in space anywhere (absurd) but that between "things" is empty space, no-thing. Nothing to curve, have shape, etc. "Things" *in space* "resonate", not space, which is and does nothing, including "expand" tho cosmic 'stuff' is expanding outward into empty, endless space.

 

okay, sorry for the misunderstanding.

i have no objection in an emptiness as long as this emptiness exits between two objects.

my problem is the assumption that if you took the objects away, what's left is still emptiness.

emptiness is not absolute. it's meaning is only relative to something.

if you take away something, you take away nothingness.

what is left is neither something or nothing. what is left is simply undifferentiated.

i guess that surmise my point.

 

There is a dichotomy in the philosophic world which is quite familiar to anyone with any reasonable knowledge of philosophy of science: the study of logical structures commonly referred to as “explanations” is called “epistemology” and the study of “what exists” is called “ontology”. Science is very much concerned with explaining the world we find ourselves in and thus falls almost entirely into the field of epistemology. Exactly what it is that is being explained (what exists) falls into the field of ontology. The reader should recognize that epistemology is the respected central issue of science whereas the subject of ontology has been essentially ignored by the hard scientists as being “metaphysics” (beyond physics).

 

science is a summation of observation [experiment), calculation (math) and reasoning (philosophy). we should never forget that the roots of modern science is called natural philosophy. i would suppose that the development of an atomic model to its present model is driven by a deep embedded inquisitive instinct "what is it?". a question of ontology. maybe some scientist would rather shut up and just calculate, its a perfectly valid approach but not necessarily the only approach. imho, under this sub forum (phil of sci ), it is perfectly reasonable to have a consenting allowance to stray a little bit into metaphysics.

 

be well

[Doctordick]

imho, under this sub forum (phil of sci ), it is perfectly reasonable to have a consenting allowance to stray a little bit into metaphysics.

You totally misunderstand my post. I have nothing against thinking about metaphysical issues; my complaint is with the lack of thought usually presumed to be acceptable under the guise of “philosophy”. People seem to think that, because “philosophy” is not currently held to be a “hard” science, one need not be concerned with the rationality of their thoughts. BS is BS in any guise.

i would suppose that the development of an atomic model to its present model is driven by a deep embedded inquisitive instinct "what is it?". a question of ontology.

The problem is that people do not ask the question “what is it?” What they actually do is presume they know what it is and then worry about, “how can I express what I think it is?”

 

Most everyone here thinks “space-time” is a physical thing having the qualities of both “space” and “time” which are, in turn, presumed to be well understood “things”. Only on very rare occasions does anyone take the trouble to define what they are talking about. As I often say, if you can not define what you personally mean by a word, you don't know what you are talking about. Of course I am a grumpy old man.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[watcher]

You totally misunderstand my post. I have nothing against thinking about metaphysical issues; my complaint is with the lack of thought usually presumed to be acceptable under the guise of “philosophy”. People seem to think that, because “philosophy” is not currently held to be a “hard” science, one need not be concerned with the rationality of their thoughts. BS is BS in any guise.

The problem is that people do not ask the question “what is it?” What they actually do is presume they know what it is and then worry about, “how can I express what I think it is?”

 

Most everyone here thinks “space-time” is a physical thing having the qualities of both “space” and “time” which are, in turn, presumed to be well understood “things”. Only on very rare occasions does anyone take the trouble to define what they are talking about. As I often say, if you can not define what you personally mean by a word, you don't know what you are talking about. Of course I am a grumpy old man.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

it's a process. just like the exchanges taking place here. and the lurkers seemed to be always the beneficiary, hehe. sorry if i don't see it the way you do, i don't see the BS. what i see are people trying to think outside the box. that is my presumption. the BS don't bothered me at all, everyone has fault in their understanding, even the great ones. and nonetheless, they do had their take on ontology. its more fun than learning how to re- normalize equations. imo

[Michael Mooney]

Hi folks,

I was reviewing this thread in preparation for answering Modest's post #263 above (looking for where I already answered him)... but I only got through page 6. I'll find the posts where I've already explained my understanding of SR and GR and share relevant material again...

later. But meanwhile here is a quick review of unanswered posts/replies through page 6.

(Back asap.... BTW, These notes are transcribed from my "notepad" so will not have boxed quotes.)

----------------------------

#1 MM:" In answering, you may correctly assume that I have thoroughly studied the background of the "spacetime" component of relativity theory."

 

#2 Tormod: "Spacetime isn't an attempt to "create something where there is nothing". Rather it is an attempt at explaining what there *is* that comprises the space between "things" in the cosmos.

 

That objects bend the paths of light traveling through space was proven back in 1919. The only apparent explanation for this (since light is a massless particle) is that light travels "through" something. Since the aether had been disproved there was no need to add a cosmic "fluid"."

 

MM commentary(1/14):The momentum of light gives it the same property as mass in response to massive gravitational pull on light. It is still possible that there is no-thing between "things." So Tormod first claims that spacetime does not claim to make something out of nothing, then posits that there "*is*" some "what" between things to convey gravitational pull on mass-less light. This does not follow. See the famous "box of mirrors" experiments in evidence that captured light adds inertia to the box, same as mass.

 

I concluded in my next post (#3) to Tormod:

"You conclude by, again assuming the actual existence of "spacetime"... which, as I said begs the original question....

Please answer without assuming a-priori the existential validity of spacetime as an actual medium... i.e., the point of the title question." (No reply.)

 

Post #25:

modest:

"I find nothing inherently wrong with Einstein's "definitions" of time and space being what clocks and rods measure."

 

Doctordick:

"That is clearly a circular mental construct! I don't think you have any comprehension of what I am talking about."

 

MM (1/14) Agreed. Never has modest addressed my repeated question (thought experiment, etc.)... Paraphrased: Without any clocks what is time?... Without any rods, what is space? Also, since no one knows how gravity works, why posit curved nothing-ness to explain it.

 

Post #38, MM to modest:

"...I went to some length to contrast the ongoing universal present with the "elapsed time" component of equations central to both SR and GR, but you have not addressed the above at all."

 

(1/14) MM: Still haven't... but to disregard the universal present altogether in favor of his often repeated mantra, "Everything is relative" (and depends on observation vis-s-vis lightspeed and its constancy... all "elapsed time" dependent.)

 

Post#58:

MM:

"Still, there has been nothing offered against the assumption that electromagnetic, gravitational, and micro-scale quantum forces can traverse empty space without an intermediate agent of some kind "filling space."

Modest:

"You, yourself, have said there are fields (electromagnetic and gravitational) traversing space. A field is *by definition* an intermediate agent. I think, you don't realize the contradictions you introduce in order to validate your view."

 

(1/14 commentary)

The above exchange really muddies the water making "the force of..." (insert one of the four...)into "something", an "intermediate agent" *filling the emptiness of space between things.* I am not even allowed to call space "empty" if "forces" (*of unknown nature*) are traversing it... therefore "filling it with the agent of the force." Yet another of modest's familiar tautologies... like "time is what clocks measure."

-----------------

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

A "quickie from Wiki" follow up before I go... (quicker ref. than searching this thread for my previous comments on the following)

 

My commentaries in bold:

Wiki:

"Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source."

Got it! Had all along.

 

"Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon, namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime."

 

Reification of time and space as "spacetime" "slipped in" as "revealed" by SR. The leap to reification... the subject of this thread.

 

Wiki, cont'd (postulates and their consequences):

"The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (Galileo's principle of relativity),

The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

I get it and agree.

The resultant theory has many surprising consequences. Some of these are:

 

Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for some observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.

In cosmic perspective, transcending local observer perspective, "it" is always *now*... THE PRESENT SIMULTANEOUSLY EVERYWHERE.

Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.

Yes. Forces acting on clocks to make them move faster than stationary clocks (commonly known as acceleration, makes clocks slow down. In the present there is no "time" to "dilate."

Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.

An accelerated measuring rod compacts and then re-extends when slowed down again. The actual distance between two actual points is a different matter. If the two points are moved through space at the same rate of acceleration, the distance will remain the same between them... always a *straight line*, btw.

 

"Some of the consequences of general relativity are:

 

Time goes more slowly in higher gravitational fields. This is called gravitational time dilation.

Time is not a thing. Clocks run more slowly in "higher gravitational fields. Let science investigate the dynamics of distorted *time keeping* rather than reifying time.

Orbits precess in a way unexpected in Newton's theory of gravity. (This has been observed in the orbit of Mercury and in binary pulsars).

No question, the math of relativity improved gravitational calculation.

Rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field.

The momentum of light acts exactly as if it had mass.

Frame-dragging, in which a rotating mass "drags along" the space time around it.

I addressed "frame dragging" on page one of this thread. A "wrinkled fabric, spacetime" adds nothing to the observed gravitational effects of masses swirling into black holes or anomalies of earth satellites due to topographical irregularities in earths gravitational field.

 

Michael

[Doctordick]

Sorry Michael but I just had to intervene after the really great number of irrational posts you have made.

"Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source."

Got it! Had all along.

That's nice; however, are you intellectually capable of deducing the consequences of that fact.

"Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon, namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime."

 

Reification of time and space as "spacetime" "slipped in" as "revealed" by SR. The leap to reification... the subject of this thread.

Ok, I can accept that; it is indeed the subject of this thread.

Wiki, cont'd (postulates and their consequences):

"The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (Galileo's principle of relativity),

The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

I get it and agree.

I am surprised as to how much you agree with considering your adament refusal to accept the relativistic conclusions implied by that agreement.

The resultant theory has many surprising consequences. Some of these are:

 

Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for some observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.

 

In cosmic perspective, transcending local observer perspective, "it" is always *now*... THE PRESENT SIMULTANEOUSLY EVERYWHERE.

I suspect no one would argue with that perspective.

Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.

I note that you have neglected to specify “stationary in that observer's perspective “ and suspect you are missing a very important issue right here.

Yes. Forces acting on clocks to make them move faster than stationary clocks (commonly known as acceleration, makes clocks slow down. In the present there is no "time" to "dilate."

Now that statement is ridiculous on the face of it: you in your realization of “the present”, “there is no 'time' to 'dilate'? I don't think you have thought this issue out.

Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.

Apparently you have not taken the trouble to consider the issue of agreement on the appropriate clocks: i.e., measuring the length of the object means noting the position of each end at the same time. If one has problems setting their clocks, problems establishing length follow immediately.

An accelerated measuring rod compacts and then re-extends when slowed down again. The actual distance between two actual points is a different matter. If the two points are moved through space at the same rate of acceleration, the distance will remain the same between them... always a *straight line*, btw.

Boy that statement contains a heap of assumptions. You need to think that out a little more carefully.

"Some of the consequences of general relativity are:

 

Time goes more slowly in higher gravitational fields. This is called gravitational time dilation.

Actually, this is no longer considered a consequence of general relativity. It is rather a consequence of conservation of energy. (Once one realizes that the energy on a photon is related to it's frequency, the fall in that frequency as it proceeds to a higher gravitational potential becomes an issue of “conservation of energy” and must be a consequence of any internally consistent theory of gravity).

Time is not a thing. Clocks run more slowly in "higher gravitational fields. Let science investigate the dynamics of distorted *time keeping* rather than reifying time.

In essence, what you are saying is that “all” internally consistent theories of gravity must yield such effects. Recognize this and accept it as a necessary aspect of any theory of gravity.

Orbits precess in a way unexpected in Newton's theory of gravity. (This has been observed in the orbit of Mercury and in binary pulsars).

Yes, that is true; however, there exists another possibility which certainly has not been examined.

No question, the math of relativity improved gravitational calculation.

”Improved” I will agree with; but accurate unarguable results are not yet available.

Rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field.

The momentum of light acts exactly as if it had mass.

Frame-dragging, in which a rotating mass "drags along" the space time around it.

I addressed "frame dragging" on page one of this thread. A "wrinkled fabric, spacetime" adds nothing to the observed gravitational effects of masses swirling into black holes or anomalies of earth satellites due to topographical irregularities in earths gravitational field.

The rest of your post requires more support than you give.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Michael Mooney]

Dd:"Sorry Michael but I just had to intervene after the really great

 

number of irrational posts you have made."

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

"Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light

 

is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of

 

motion of the source."

Got it! Had all along.

 

Dd: "That's nice; however, are you intellectually capable of deducing

 

the consequences of that fact."

 

"As a longtime career psychologist I must say that I seldom come across

 

such flagrant "condescending arrogance egocentrically assuming

 

superiority prior to argument.

 

In contrast You could have started an actual respectful dialogue by

 

specifying what, in your opinion, has been irrational in my posts

Then you could avoid the flagrant flaming of the latter alpha-put down

 

tactic posing as a rhetorical question by naming what you perceive as

 

my deficiencies of deduction, point by point, rather than arrogantly

 

assuming that your "intellectual capability" is, defacto, superior.

I have already bragged sufficiently about my factual IQ scores. (In

 

briefest review... SBIS: 170; WAIS: 178.)

 

I quoted WIkipedia as follows:

 

"The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform

 

motion relative to one another (Galileo's principle of relativity),

The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers,

 

regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of

 

the light."

....

and commented:

"I get it and agree."

 

You responded:

 

"I am surprised as to how much you agree with considering your adament

 

refusal to accept the relativistic conclusions implied by that

 

agreement."....

 

without specifying what "relativistic conclusions", in your

 

not-so-humble opinion, I refuse to accept... which you take as

 

established truth.

 

I stated the obvious yet again, that "THE PRESENT (is

 

SIMULTANEOUSLY EVERYWHERE.... and you agreed, saying,

 

"I suspect no one would argue with that perspective."

 

Yet the constant reification of time by mainstream science... the very

 

concept of "time dilation" contradicts omnipresent timelessness (the

 

eternal now) by positing "time" as "someting" that can slow down or

 

speed up... "time dllation" constantly used as an established

 

reality... a validated truth.

 

I continued to quote Wki, as follows:

Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly

 

than an observer's "stationary" clock.

 

Yet you mistake the source and criticzse me as if I neglected to

 

address your bias, specifically:

 

"I note that you have neglected to specify “stationary in that

 

observer's perspective “ and suspect you are missing a very important

 

issue right here."

 

Commenting on the above Wiki quote I criticized, as follows:

Yes. Forces acting on clocks to make them move faster than

 

stationary clocks (commonly known as acceleration, makes clocks slow

 

down. In the present there is no "time" to "dilate."

In reply to the above, you wrote:

Now that statement is ridiculous on the face of it: you in your

 

realization of “the present”, “there is no 'time' to 'dilate'? I don't

 

think you have thought this issue out.

How, exactly is it " ridiculous on the face of it?" A clock accelerated

 

to faster velocity does in fact "tick" more slowly than its

 

"stationary" control, "losing time" as it were. I've thought it through

 

for many years and written about it extensively. Here is more extreme

 

arrogance on your part in that, since I don't agree with you, I must

 

have not "thought this issue out."

How exactly do you disagree? The present is ongoing, always now. There

 

is no "time" but that which clocks "capture" as "elapsed time" between

 

event "beginning" and "ending", *as designated by an observer with

 

"stopwatch" in hand.

 

Apparently you have not taken the trouble to consider the issue

 

of agreement on the appropriate clocks: i.e., measuring the length of

 

the object means noting the position of each end at the same time. If

 

one has problems setting their clocks, problems establishing length

 

follow immediately.

I have contemplated the reality of actual, objective (beyond subjective

 

perception and the relativity of lightspeed limit) distance between

 

objects (which does not change with observer perspective) for more than

 

40 yrs. You arrogance continues to amaze me!

 

The length of a rod changes as it is compressed by accelleration

 

(becoming shorter if accelerated in either direction it "points."

 

Accelerated clocks don't keep time the same as their control clocks.

 

(Yes, I'm repeating myself.)

 

The distance between two virtual "points" is defined as the straight

 

line between them. If you imagine these two points accelerating at

 

exactly the same rate in the same direction, the distance between them

 

will remain the same. What about this have you not yet taken the

 

trouble to think through thoroughly?

Yet all you come up with is more arrogance with no substantive

 

rebuttal:

Boy that statement contains a heap of assumptions. You need to

 

think that out a little more carefully.

I said:

Time is not a thing. Clocks run more slowly in "higher

 

gravitational fields. Let science investigate the dynamics of distorted

 

*time keeping* rather than reifying time.

 

and you replied:

 

In essence, what you are saying is that “all” internally

 

consistent theories of gravity must yield such effects. Recognize this

 

and accept it as a necessary aspect of any theory of gravity.

 

Huh? What "such effects?" Recognize what? That forces upon clocks

 

effect their time-keeping? Of course! Do you agree that "time" is not

 

some-"thing" that dilates?

 

Your last statement is the epitome of irony:

The rest of your post requires more support than you give.

It (the above) requires whatever specifics you intended as criticism...

 

more than just another condescendingly judgmental statement.

 

Good grief! I had looked forward to a critique of your take on how

 

epistemology addresses ontology... if it does, and to what extent...

 

but my motivation for actual dialogue with you has somehow diminished

 

to near zero.

(sorry...notepad format... got the "submit" run around to nowhere again)

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Freeztar,

In post 261 above I respectfully ask you directly how you saw the axiom "It is all relative" as a function of subjective idealism. Is relativity a "scientific dogma" after all? I gave examples and asked specific questions.

Is this the "stonewall" method of "moderation?"...

Or the "Borg imperative"... all who disagree will be assimilated... resistance is futile!

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Ok... I'm offline for days at a time. Hardly one to expect prompt replies all the time.

Meanwhile here is a little philosophy of science relevant to the claim that distances between celestial objects depends totally on the point of observation.

 

By means of triangulation or parallax using satellites and radar we (the scientific community) know for a fact that the sun is, on average exactly 92.58 million miles from earth, being, at perhelion 91million miles and at aphelion 94.5 million miles from earth.

 

We know that lightspeed is constant at 670 616 629 mph and that nothing can travel faster than lightspeed (unless you "believe in" the inflationary model of expanding space after the "bang"... which is fantasy.) So, when you do the math (oooh, scary!) it turns out to be exactly 8.317 light-minutes sun to earth. (Light minutes or years are, of course measures of distance, so the above in light minutes equals the above in miles. "Elementary, my dear Watson."

 

So, any claim that anything, even light, can travel from earth to sun in less than a minute is totally bogus. And any *real* website on science has the actual objective distances listed (averages and max/min breakdown as above) for distances from sun to all planets and some objects beyond our solar system.

This claim that such distances all depend on variation in speed/vector of point of observation is a bogus fixation on the dogma that "It's all relative."

 

Michael