HAHAHA...

[Y]

Listen very carefully to the last question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqFJymMZvXw

-y

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/20/2013 8:27 AM, Y wrote:
> Listen very carefully to the last question...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqFJymMZvXw
>

yes. and what do you think was the outcome of that paper published in
1951. have you looked it up and any of the follow-up papers?

is this how you get your information about physics? from quiz shows on
youtube?

[Y]

More Aether science...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77yXhAibQp4



Straight from the horses mouth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng

-y

[Nick Strawberry]

Absolutely Vertical wrote:

> is this how you get your information about physics? from quiz shows on
> youtube?

This seems to be a good practice, since the crap on youtube hardly
gets censored.

[Nick Strawberry]

Y wrote:

> Straight from the horses mouth...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng

aHmmm? I didn't knew Einstein was an Aetherian. Indeed.

This tells a blatant TRUTH they struggle to stop from getting out
too people. This is the fact that

RELATIVITY is founded and is an AETHER outcome.

Now lets hear them telling that they now, according to their "Modern
Physics" know better. Because Einstein did a mistake (another one LOL).

[Alfonso]

Well I wonder who set the questions! Einstein's SR did not deny the
existence of the aether so I'm not surprised that the contestant did not
come up with that answer.

SR was a way of calculating the Lorentz transforms from what might be
described as an empirical starting points. Assuming Maxwell's aether
theory to be correct and being unable to fault the methodology of the
MMX then the null result had measured the speed of an observer w.r.t
aether as always being zero. The second postulate simply describes what
an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience.

At the time SR was incomplete in that a normal part of a theory in
those days would be an explanation of the physical process involved.
Lorentz's aether theory had such an explanation and Einstein objected to
the asymmetry implied by it. Einstein was looking for an explanation
which still included the aether in order to provide both a medium for
light to propagate in and to justify the concept of source independence
as per Maxwell i.e. the speed of light is a function of the aether not
of the process of generation. In his 1920 lecture he tried to imply that
he was working towards a solution; his "aether without the immobility of
Lorentz's". In essence an aether which did not have a specific FoR
associated with it, with which all observers would have the same
relationship.. Put simply an aether which every observer would naturally
find himself stationary w.r.t.

An absurd idea which would have sunk SR without trace if it had not been
for new ideas as to the very nature of physics introduced by
Schrodinger, Heisenburg et al which had their origin in the writings of
the philosopher Immanual Kant. These new ideas were that reality is
beyond the human mind and speculation as to how nature worked was
considered pointless. The aether was a part of such an explanation. If
anyone showed the aether to be unnecessary it was Kant.

Einstein had a somewhat ambivalent attitude to the new thinking and
continued to believe in an aether of some sort while accepting SR to be
a mathematical formulation based upon empirically discovered starting
points.

Alfonso

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/20/2013 1:53 PM, Alfonso wrote:
> SR was a way of calculating the Lorentz transforms from what might be
> described as an empirical starting points. Assuming Maxwell's aether
> theory to be correct and being unable to fault the methodology of the
> MMX then the null result had measured the speed of an observer w.r.t
> aether as always being zero. The second postulate simply describes what
> an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience.

except that the second postulate does not stand alone. it was offered in
conjunction with the first postulate, which went on to say that what the
second postulate describes would be true not only for the observer
stationary w.r.t. the aether, but also for all observers in uniform
relative motion to it.

>
> At the time SR was incomplete in that a normal part of a theory in
> those days would be an explanation of the physical process involved.

ahem. maxwell's theory was no more incomplete than newton's law of
gravitation or for that matter the kinetic theory of gases, which only
made general statements about the microscopic behavior of the gas
molecules. yet the other two do not seem to bother you much, despite
your loud complaining about the incompleteness of sr.

secondly, there is a physical explanation of sr. it's just not of the
character you would expect, based on matter-on-matter interactions,
which is why you find lorentz aether theory somehow more appealing. you
don't like explanations that are not matter-on-matter interactions and
discount them as physical explanations at all. scientists are not nearly
so narrow minded about what constitutes a physical (not mathematical)
explanation.

[Y]

Kant : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/#KanCriLei

The idea that space and time are geometric in nature is synonymous
with the notion of a God.

While space and time may be represented by geometry, it is quite
another thing to suggest that space and time are 'actually'
geometrical in nature. This implies that some great power influences
this place and makes geometric decisions about the universe, in the
same way that an architect influences work on their drafting board.

This geometric idea of relativity is a grave problem for theoretical
physics. Theories should be about descriptions of nature rather than
descriptions of supernatural things. An idea that space and time are
geometric - entailing no need for an aether - or dark matter, or some
other guiding medium like a quantum foam, describes something that is
supernatural. Some people, particularly the more spiritual types are
obviously more comfortable with this.

For example, Tom Roberts is quite comfortable with the notion that
spacetime is actually geometrical, as opposed to spacetime behaving
rather 'geometrical like'. Of course, he claims that his idea is just
part of a model, but sees no sense in pursuing more accurate
descriptions of nature.

Geometry is something that is performed by intelligent beings not
nature. Bear in mind, those objects in nature which appear to be
geometric, including the symmetry of the human form, are an emergent
outcome of particular forces, and are not created 'geometrically'.
These objects appear to be geometrical, but they are not constructed
by geometrical methods.

-y

[xxein]

xxein: Good rebuttal. You could have also said more. Trying to
shorten the mathematical description of the physic, takes
understanding the physic part out of it. Instead, it raises more
problems and eventually creates more variables than before. But even
I could do that.

MMX, Pound Rebka and the Pioneer anomaly are all misunderstood because
of doing/changing/shortening math instead of having a better idea of
the physic. My mind laughs when I read read all this contradictory
and opinionated stuff. Not that I don't have my own opinion.

Even if I didn't get a degree in physics, 28 years of a constant study
of it gives me a lot more than almost every tenured physics
professor. Too bad my math didn't keep up that pace.

But it's better than comic books. Not that I don't like them too.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/20/2013 6:48 PM, Y wrote:
> This geometric idea of relativity is a grave problem for theoretical
> physics. Theories should be about descriptions of nature rather than
> descriptions of supernatural things. An idea that space and time are
> geometric - entailing no need for an aether - or dark matter, or some
> other guiding medium like a quantum foam, describes something that is
> supernatural. Some people, particularly the more spiritual types are
> obviously more comfortable with this.

in other words, you believe that the natural entails material things and
the aspects of material things only, and that any other aspects are
taken to be supernatural and spiritual and not the proper domain of physics.

[Y]

On May 21, 7:42 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'm more comfortable with a theory that entails the existence of an
elusive matter (such as the aether, or dark matter) than a theory that
purports the existence of an intelligent almighty geometer. Albeit
that I am an almighty geometer who thinks and therefore is :)

-y

[Absolutely Vertical]

false dichotomy. nature itself is geometric and the geometry has
physical implications, which go into the physical explanations.

this is precisely my point. the moment you deny the _natural_ exhibition
of geometric effects and say that all geometrical considerations belong
only to a supernatural being, then you are falsely constraining what
science is about.

[Alfonso]

On 20/05/13 21:13, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 1:53 PM, Alfonso wrote:
>> SR was a way of calculating the Lorentz transforms from what might be
>> described as an empirical starting points. Assuming Maxwell's aether
>> theory to be correct and being unable to fault the methodology of the
>> MMX then the null result had measured the speed of an observer w.r.t
>> aether as always being zero. The second postulate simply describes what
>> an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience.
>
> except that the second postulate does not stand alone. it was offered in
> conjunction with the first postulate, which went on to say that what the
> second postulate describes would be true not only for the observer
> stationary w.r.t. the aether, but also for all observers in uniform
> relative motion to it.
>
>>
>> At the time SR was incomplete in that a normal part of a theory in
>> those days would be an explanation of the physical process involved.
>
> ahem. maxwell's theory was no more incomplete than newton's law of
> gravitation

Maxwell's aether *theory* was a classical theory in that it attempted to
explain the nature of light in terms of a physical medium and physical
waves in that medium. The medium was also responsible for transferring
the action at a distance force between charges.

Newtons *laws* represent a mathematical description. It was not a theory
as such although I believe that Newton did speculate regarding a
gravitational aether i.e. a means of explaining the force between masses.

or for that matter the kinetic theory of gases, which only
> made general statements about the microscopic behavior of the gas
> molecules. yet the other two do not seem to bother you much, despite
> your loud complaining about the incompleteness of sr.
>
> secondly, there is a physical explanation of sr.

No there isn't. Einstein described relativity as a "principle theory".

"[Principle theorys] employ the analytic, not the synthetic, method. The
elements which form their bases and starting-point are not
hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general
characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to
mathematically formulated criteria which these separate processes or the
theoretical representations of them have to satisfy.... The theory of
relativity belongs to the latter class. In order to grasp its nature,
one needs first of all to become acquainted with the principles on
which it is based." Einstein [1]

By principles he means the 2 postulates. The second postulate was
"empirically discovered" when the MMX measured the speed of an observer
as always being zero and the second postulate describing what an
observer stationary w.r.t. the aether would observe.

Under Kant's philosophy "explanations" are futile attempts to describe
nature which according to his philosophy is beyond the human mind. The
word "theory" has been re-defined to mean a mathematical model and such
is describes as a "physical" "theory" if it predicts physical outcome.

"What [modern physics] says is that there is not necessarily a cause in
the *classical* sense. In a *classical* philosophy, "cause" gets
strapped on with baggage that is not central to the core meaning of
cause. For example, in a classical philosophy, "cause" adds the
extraneous baggage of "preceding in time", which is in fact not
necessary to the core meaning of "cause" and is in fact ONLY supported
in a classical philosophy. There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER WRONG with
changing the meaning of a term to strip down what it means. Causality is
NOT abandoned by physics. Strict, time-ordered deterministic causality
through a unique set of physical states is abandoned." PD

it's just not of the
> character you would expect, based on matter-on-matter interactions,
> which is why you find lorentz aether theory somehow more appealing. you
> don't like explanations that are not matter-on-matter interactions and
> discount them as physical explanations at all. scientists are not nearly
> so narrow minded about what constitutes a physical (not mathematical)
> explanation.
>
>> Lorentz's aether theory had such an explanation and Einstein objected to
>> the asymmetry implied by it. Einstein was looking for an explanation
>> which still included the aether in order to provide both a medium for
>> light to propagate in and to justify the concept of source independence
>> as per Maxwell i.e. the speed of light is a function of the aether not
>> of the process of generation.
>

[1] "What is the Theory of Relativity?", Einstein, Ideas and Opinions,
Three Rivers Press, p. 228-9.

[Dono.]

On May 21, 9:35 am, extreme crank Alfonso aka John Kennaugh wrote:
> On 20/05/13 21:13, Absolutely Vertical wrote:



> By principles he means the 2 postulates. The second postulate was
> "empirically discovered" when the MMX measured the speed of an observer
> as always being zero

Really, John?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/21/2013 11:35 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 20/05/13 21:13, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 1:53 PM, Alfonso wrote:
>>> SR was a way of calculating the Lorentz transforms from what might be
>>> described as an empirical starting points. Assuming Maxwell's aether
>>> theory to be correct and being unable to fault the methodology of the
>>> MMX then the null result had measured the speed of an observer w.r.t
>>> aether as always being zero. The second postulate simply describes what
>>> an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience.
>>
>> except that the second postulate does not stand alone. it was offered in
>> conjunction with the first postulate, which went on to say that what the
>> second postulate describes would be true not only for the observer
>> stationary w.r.t. the aether, but also for all observers in uniform
>> relative motion to it.
>>
>>>
>>> At the time SR was incomplete in that a normal part of a theory in
>>> those days would be an explanation of the physical process involved.
>>
>> ahem. maxwell's theory was no more incomplete than newton's law of
>> gravitation
>
> Maxwell's aether *theory* was a classical theory in that it attempted to
> explain the nature of light in terms of a physical medium and physical
> waves in that medium. The medium was also responsible for transferring
> the action at a distance force between charges.

fine, then take maxwell's _laws_, not his aether _theory_. maxwell's
_laws_ of electrodynamics are in the same state of incompleteness as
newton's _law_ of gravitation and the kinetic _laws_ of gases.

note that while there is no complaint from you about gravity and the
kinetic treatment of gases, relativity you find riddled with
shortcomings on this basis.

>
> Newtons *laws* represent a mathematical description. It was not a theory
> as such although I believe that Newton did speculate regarding a
> gravitational aether i.e. a means of explaining the force between masses.
>
>
> or for that matter the kinetic theory of gases, which only
>> made general statements about the microscopic behavior of the gas
>> molecules. yet the other two do not seem to bother you much, despite
>> your loud complaining about the incompleteness of sr.
>>
>> secondly, there is a physical explanation of sr.
>
> No there isn't. Einstein described relativity as a "principle theory".

and he is not the final word on the subject. the _current_ understanding
of relativity, despite einstein's own thoughts on the matter, is that
there is a _physical_ explanation of the conclusions.

pd was right. the absence of a _classical_ cause does not mean the
absence of a cause.

[Y]

On May 21, 11:55 pm, Absolutely Vertical

Nonsense. Nature is not innately geometric. The 'geometric like'
things we observe in nature are an emergent outcome of particular
forces. You should do some research into emergence.

Bear in mind, when we observe something in nature which is 'geometric
like' we 'reduce' it's form to geometric principles. This process of
reduction is the first step in the geometric representation process.
It is a very common thing to reduce emergent things in nature to
geometric concepts. This does NOT entail, that those things in nature
are geometric. Failure to recognise this basic reality creates a false
foundation in physics.

To say that nature is innately geometric, is to say that something in
nature is 'reducing' things, which is actually contrary to the process
of emergence which arises from complexity, not simplicity.

-y

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/21/2013 5:06 PM, Y wrote:
> Nonsense. Nature is not innately geometric. The 'geometric like'
> things we observe in nature are an emergent outcome of particular
> forces. You should do some research into emergence.

well, that's your opinion. most physicists would strenously disagree.

>
> Bear in mind, when we observe something in nature which is 'geometric
> like' we 'reduce' it's form to geometric principles. This process of
> reduction is the first step in the geometric representation process.
> It is a very common thing to reduce emergent things in nature to
> geometric concepts. This does NOT entail, that those things in nature
> are geometric. Failure to recognise this basic reality creates a false
> foundation in physics.

as i said, most would disagree with you. but this becomes a
philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

[Y]

On May 22, 8:27 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/21/2013 5:06 PM, Y wrote:
>
> > Nonsense. Nature is not innately geometric. The 'geometric like'
> > things we observe in nature are an emergent outcome of particular
> > forces. You should do some research into emergence.
>
> well, that's your opinion. most physicists would strenously disagree.

I don't think that is true. It is your idea about geometric nature
that is wrong.

> > Bear in mind, when we observe something in nature which is 'geometric
> > like' we 'reduce' it's form to geometric principles. This process of
> > reduction is the first step in the geometric representation process.
> > It is a very common thing to reduce emergent things in nature to
> > geometric concepts. This does NOT entail, that those things in nature
> > are geometric. Failure to recognise this basic reality creates a false
> > foundation in physics.
>
> as i said, most would disagree with you. but this becomes a
> philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

Physics is not just a science. It is also a language. It is also a
philosophy. It is many things.

-y

[Alfonso]

On 21/05/13 17:54, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 11:35 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> On 20/05/13 21:13, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>>> On 5/20/2013 1:53 PM, Alfonso wrote:
>>>> SR was a way of calculating the Lorentz transforms from what might be
>>>> described as an empirical starting points. Assuming Maxwell's aether
>>>> theory to be correct and being unable to fault the methodology of the
>>>> MMX then the null result had measured the speed of an observer w.r.t
>>>> aether as always being zero. The second postulate simply describes what
>>>> an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience.
>>>
>>> except that the second postulate does not stand alone. it was offered in
>>> conjunction with the first postulate, which went on to say that what the
>>> second postulate describes would be true not only for the observer
>>> stationary w.r.t. the aether, but also for all observers in uniform
>>> relative motion to it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> At the time SR was incomplete in that a normal part of a theory in
>>>> those days would be an explanation of the physical process involved.
>>>
>>> ahem. maxwell's theory was no more incomplete than newton's law of
>>> gravitation
>>
>> Maxwell's aether *theory* was a classical theory in that it attempted to
>> explain the nature of light in terms of a physical medium and physical
>> waves in that medium. The medium was also responsible for transferring
>> the action at a distance force between charges.
>
> fine, then take maxwell's _laws_, not his aether _theory_.

Your point is?
Newton's corpuscular theory of light was a *theory* because it includes
a physical explanation.
Maxwell's aether *theory* is a theory. - it includes a physical
explanation.
Lorentz aether *theory* is a theory. - it includes a physical explanation.

Einsteins SR did not include a physical explanation and he failed to
provide an alternative to that of Lorentz.

Philosophy changed, the use of the word "theory" changed and now
Maxwell's equations are described as Maxwell's theory. Had the
philosophy not changed SR would be considered a failed theory as it
failed to bring anything which Lorentz had not already provided and
contained no alternative explanation to that of Lorentz.

What is your point?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/21/2013 7:37 PM, Y wrote:
> On May 22, 8:27 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 5/21/2013 5:06 PM, Y wrote:
>>
>>> Nonsense. Nature is not innately geometric. The 'geometric like'
>>> things we observe in nature are an emergent outcome of particular
>>> forces. You should do some research into emergence.
>>
>> well, that's your opinion. most physicists would strenously disagree.
>
> I don't think that is true. It is your idea about geometric nature
> that is wrong.

i find it interesting that you are willing to claim that philosophical
positions are 'right' or 'wrong'.

>
>>> Bear in mind, when we observe something in nature which is 'geometric
>>> like' we 'reduce' it's form to geometric principles. This process of
>>> reduction is the first step in the geometric representation process.
>>> It is a very common thing to reduce emergent things in nature to
>>> geometric concepts. This does NOT entail, that those things in nature
>>> are geometric. Failure to recognise this basic reality creates a false
>>> foundation in physics.
>>
>> as i said, most would disagree with you. but this becomes a
>> philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
>
> Physics is not just a science. It is also a language. It is also a
> philosophy. It is many things.

i'm trying to parse this paragraph. what exactly do you think physics is?

[Absolutely Vertical]

to a point. it had a lot of open questions about the interactions
between the corpuscles.

> Maxwell's aether *theory* is a theory. - it includes a physical
> explanation.

right, one that conflicts either with the principle of relativity or
experimental results.

> Lorentz aether *theory* is a theory. - it includes a physical explanation.

right, one that cannot explain the features of non-electrodynamic
interactions. compare that with relativity, which _can_.

>
> Einsteins SR did not include a physical explanation and he failed to
> provide an alternative to that of Lorentz.

that's where you're wrong. einstein's relativity includes a physical
explanation that includes the active physical role of space and time in
the actual dynamics of interactions, whereas it had been falsely
_presumed_ before that space and time where merely passive backgrounds
in which physics played. it is the _rejection_ of even the _possibility_
that space and time could be included in that role that is off the mark.
it is wrong-headed to falsely declare that space and time _cannot
possibly_ be part of the physical explanation, and therefore anything
that includes them cannot be counted as a proper physical explanation.
simple as that.

>
> Philosophy changed, the use of the word "theory" changed and now
> Maxwell's equations are described as Maxwell's theory.

not so. what happened is that the agent of the physical explanation
became not the medium but the fields themselves. so the laws expressed
in the equations are still about _physical_ things -- just that the
physical things are fields not a medium. that is, the loss of the medium
does not mean that you have lost a physical explanation.

if then you ask, 'but what are these fields?' the answer is that they
are properties of space and time, which are active physical agents in
the dynamics of interactions. at this point, you tend to once again
choke and say, 'but that can't be, that's not allowed, space and time
cannot be permitted to be active physical agents in dynamics of
interactions.' and we're back to the disagreement mentioned above.

[Y]

That's interesting Alfonso. Einstein more or less remarketed the
already existing Lorentz aether theory and equations into a "new" SR
"theory". This was more of a philosophical exercise than a
mathematical one for Einstein.

Given the appropriate philosophical and historical considerations,
this 'spacetime geometry' idea is potentially more spiritual than the
original aether ideas. Where an aethereal substance might be light or
too perfect to observe or elusive in some way, a 'spactime geometry'
as a physical theory, implies the existence of an almighty intelligent
geometer of the universe. This is little surprising given the mindset
of a man who is famed to have said "God does not throw dice". So
perhaps we should observe SR in it's religious or spiritual context/
history, and the marketing techniques used to sell this theory to a
predominantly (Abrahamic) spiritual culture of physicists.

In many ways the development of SR was nothing more than a marketing
exercise for Einstein. Lorentz had already designed this theory to
which Einstein designed more culturally appealling and sophisticated
presentation techniques.

Of course this is little different in genius to re-releasing reebok
pumps to a market now interested in retro, than the original market
which was interested in supportive basketball shoes, and being a
homie. Same shoe, different wording, very different philosophy. Reebok
pump retros, or special relativity or something catchy like that... I
wager, if reebok pumps make it again, atrophied retro hipsters in
Soho, rather than athletic b-ballers are the punters.

Of course, now they've succeeded with their rebranding of the Lorentz
aether theory, GR was a natural progression. Now the almighty geometer
was mass and energy, and at least GR was thus partly physical.
Nevermind this 'physical theory' holds entire solar systems together
via invisible, immaterial, geometric .... lines, like those drawn on
the page, in your graphing calculators, or in CAD.

-y

[Y]

On May 22, 11:40 pm, Absolutely Vertical

What makes you think that space is physical, or that time is physical?

-y

[Y]

On May 22, 10:39 pm, Absolutely Vertical

I'll add to the list in light of Alfonsos illustrations. Among other
things, Physics is about history. I'll add to that technology, design,
marketing, culture and the zeitgeist. Ask me again soon. I'll think of
some more.

-y

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/22/2013 9:08 AM, Y wrote:
> That's interesting Alfonso. Einstein more or less remarketed the
> already existing Lorentz aether theory and equations into a "new" SR
> "theory". This was more of a philosophical exercise than a
> mathematical one for Einstein.

your interpretation is no better than alfonso's.
lorentz based his theory on the hypothesis that there was something
particular to the electromagnetic interaction itself such that it
introduced real and dynamical distortions in the objects, resulting in
length contraction (but not time dilation). it made no hypothesis about
any interaction other than electromagnetism.

einstein based his theory on an entirely different premise. it only
assumed that the laws of electrodynamics and _every other_ interaction
respected the principle that they are the same regardless of inertial
reference frame. this was later discovered to stem from the structure of
space/time itself as a natural consequence. so for einstein, it was not
a peculiarity of electromagnetism at all.

the rest of your nonsense about 'well, if it's not about matter like an
aether, then it must be about spiritualism' is dismissable.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/22/2013 9:16 AM, Y wrote:

>
> What makes you think that space is physical, or that time is physical?

because models that attribute physical properties to space and time are
more successful (in terms of matching experimental results) than models
that don't.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:40:16 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/22/2013 5:49 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> On 21/05/13 17:54, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>> Einsteins SR did not include a physical explanation and he failed to
>> provide an alternative to that of Lorentz.
>
>that's where you're wrong. einstein's relativity includes a physical
>explanation that includes the active physical role of space and time in
>the actual dynamics of interactions, whereas it had been falsely
>_presumed_ before that space and time where merely passive backgrounds
>in which physics played. it is the _rejection_ of even the _possibility_
>that space and time could be included in that role that is off the mark.
>it is wrong-headed to falsely declare that space and time _cannot
>possibly_ be part of the physical explanation, and therefore anything
>that includes them cannot be counted as a proper physical explanation.
>simple as that.
>
>>
>> Philosophy changed, the use of the word "theory" changed and now
>> Maxwell's equations are described as Maxwell's theory.
>
>not so. what happened is that the agent of the physical explanation
>became not the medium but the fields themselves. so the laws expressed
>in the equations are still about _physical_ things -- just that the
>physical things are fields not a medium. that is, the loss of the medium
>does not mean that you have lost a physical explanation.

I see you have been reading my thesis Diaper and plagiarizing my ideas.

It already puts forward the concept that 'fields are made of aether'. You
appear to be saying they are made of 'spacetime'.

If you can show that the equations of your 'spacetime geometry' are the
mathematics of fields then you and I might be able to go into partnership.

>
>if then you ask, 'but what are these fields?' the answer is that they
>are properties of space and time, which are active physical agents in
>the dynamics of interactions. at this point, you tend to once again
>choke and say, 'but that can't be, that's not allowed, space and time
>cannot be permitted to be active physical agents in dynamics of
>interactions.' and we're back to the disagreement mentioned above.

I congratulate you Delusional. Not only are you on the verge of understanding
important aspects of BaTh, you might also be unwittingly contributing to it.
Now all you have to do is accept that Einstein's theory does not apply to
empty space and you might be able to see why variable star studies are so
important.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Y]

On May 23, 12:36 am, Absolutely Vertical

See here is where you're stuck. The model does not attribute physical
properties to space and time. It attributes geometric properties to
space and time. Where a perfect circle is probably never drawn on a
page, even the most deformed circle on a page can be perfect in the
mind of the geometer. He sees it as perfect because he finds a
'center' point, which on the page is actually arbitrary, and he
rationalises it and reduces it further with his equations. He may even
see the number pi as a shorthand for a complete number without
counting for every single decimal place. Accuracy is hardly the domain
of a perfect circle. The perfect circle, and thus what is geometric
occurs in the mind. Everything else is 'geometric like'.

I would have thought that a physicist would hold this view, more so
than anyonelse, as they would be aware of the correspondence between
geometric and natural things. Spacetime is math, not physics.

-y

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/22/2013 5:03 PM, Y wrote:
> On May 23, 12:36 am, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/22/2013 9:16 AM, Y wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> What makes you think that space is physical, or that time is physical?
>>
>> because models that attribute physical properties to space and time are
>> more successful (in terms of matching experimental results) than models
>> that don't.
>
> See here is where you're stuck. The model does not attribute physical
> properties to space and time. It attributes geometric properties to
> space and time.

no, that's not correct. electromagnetic field values, for example, are
properties of space and time and have nothing to do with geometry.
energy density is a property of space and time and has nothing to do
with geometry.

might be good to learn more. where should you start. hmmmmmm.....

> Where a perfect circle is probably never drawn on a
> page, even the most deformed circle on a page can be perfect in the
> mind of the geometer. He sees it as perfect because he finds a
> 'center' point, which on the page is actually arbitrary, and he
> rationalises it and reduces it further with his equations. He may even
> see the number pi as a shorthand for a complete number without
> counting for every single decimal place. Accuracy is hardly the domain
> of a perfect circle. The perfect circle, and thus what is geometric
> occurs in the mind. Everything else is 'geometric like'.
>
> I would have thought that a physicist would hold this view, more so
> than anyonelse, as they would be aware of the correspondence between
> geometric and natural things. Spacetime is math, not physics.

you have a very limited understanding of what spacetime is. spacetime
has nothing whatsoever to do with idealized geometric objects that
reside in the minds of mathematicians.

[Y]

On May 23, 8:21 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>

I asked what made you think that space and time are physical. You
referred to models. Now you're backtracking and claiming that space is
an electromagnetic field of some kind. Is that what relativity says ?
Is space and time an electromagnetic field as defined by relativity ?

-y

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/22/2013 7:42 PM, Y wrote:
> I asked what made you think that space and time are physical. You
> referred to models. Now you're backtracking and claiming that space is
> an electromagnetic field of some kind. Is that what relativity says ?
> Is space and time an electromagnetic field as defined by relativity ?

the fact that spacetime is physical is a conclusion not solely from
relativity. we are talking about physics which invokes several different
models to describe the same thing.

secondly, what we claim about nature _is_ based on models. that's how
science works. we test models against experiment precisely to use those
models to describe nature.

[Y]

On May 23, 11:55 pm, Absolutely Vertical

Well.. what you call spacetime others call an aether. So spacetime is
something in a model, and is not necessarily natural.

-y

[Absolutely Vertical]

agree that if the only difference is the label, then the semantics are
irrelevant.

every description of nature is based on a model. think about it. what is
the natural instance of 'fruit', 'light', 'mammal', 'species',
'electron', 'table', 'metal', other than via a model?

[Y]

On May 24, 1:02 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>

Yes. You're preaching to a great supporter of that idea. However,
there is more to labeling things than semantic differences. Just
because models only describe things doesn't mean that in qualifying
what things are they shouldn't endeavor to convey the appropriate and
corresponding meaning.

When the nature of space is described as geometric, it imples that
natural space "IS" geometric. Spacetime is a specific 'geometric'
description of nature. This description implies that the natural
substrate has geometric properties. The aether is not necessarily
geometric. It may behave 'geometric like', but Einstein's spacetime
strictly implies that nature is geometric.

That is why it is important to clarify and further qualify things.
This is what progress is all about.

I am quite certain that all the necessary mathematics to describe the
universe already exist. The devil is in the details. What I mean by
this, is that eloquent WRITTEN descriptions of nature and the way
nature behaves is currently more important than the math which is
straightforward.

So when you talk about nature being geometric, and then claim that
this is simply a model, and that this description is therefore
satisfactory because it is a model, you're wrong.

-y

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/23/2013 9:42 PM, Y wrote:
> On May 24, 1:02 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
> When the nature of space is described as geometric, it imples that
> natural space "IS" geometric. Spacetime is a specific 'geometric'
> description of nature. This description implies that the natural
> substrate has geometric properties. The aether is not necessarily
> geometric. It may behave 'geometric like', but Einstein's spacetime
> strictly implies that nature is geometric.

that's ridiculous. describing an aspect of a natural thing does not mean
that the description serves as a definition. zebras are four-legged, but
this does not mean that four-leggedness is the essence of zebras or that
when i speak of four-leggedness i'm referring to the zebra aspects of
nature.

>
>