Tim88

There are basically two competing philosophies about "twin paradox" time dilation, which happen to be discussed in detail in the parallel thread "Models for making sense of relativity - physical space vs physical spacetime"; in particular posts #1 (Langevin's interpretation as he introduced the "twin" astronaut scenario) and # 78 (comparing Lorentz ether explanation with Minkowski block universe explanation for the "twin" scenario). In my opinion this thread is superfluous as it duplicates that one. But maybe you can think of something that would fit here, and that is not discussed (or going to be discussed) there.

In order to attach unambiguous meaning to the non-mathematical aspects of his model, I already asked him to show it in action by means of the car example. That avoids hollow phrases and getting lost in meaningless discussions about words, which is all too often the problem with philosophical discussions. On that point I'm fully "Feynman". Come on, people, with an elaboration of the car example I made a practical comparison between what "Space" and "Spacetime" supposedly can do on page 4, but likely I didn't do full justice to "Absolute Spacetime"; at least, I found my attempt less than satisfying and therefore probably unfair. Can't Block universe do more for understanding relativistic effects than giving a literal "perspective" and providing an "odometer" for clocks? When starting this thread, I supposed that that would have been dealt with upon reaching p.3... My elaboration on bvr's practical example was meant to be the basis for following discussions. But meanwhile we're already near the bottom of page 6 of this discussion with a lot of philosophical argumentation, but no improvement on my rather weak attempt on p.4. I sure plan to discuss Mordred's anti-presentism arguments, however it's not immediately clear to me if he suggests any practical issues and first I want to get "back to business". In this discussion I'm mostly interested in "causal power" (however, self contradicting causal power is quite useless of course). So, is there nobody following this discussion who can improve on my Absolute Spacetime interpretation of events with the traveling car, clarifying by means of that case example (and you may of course add accessories as needed) such things as light propagation, cause and effect, real and apparent, if there is "real one-way light speed", or other? With Frozen or Evolving Absolute Spacetime, as you wish. And hopefully Celeritas can illustrate what he meant, with that same illustration, with "un-real" relativistic effects in Absolute Space. Also, if Mordred can clarify his presentism objection in practice by means of that same example, that could save quite some discussion. I'll wait one day. Or longer, if you ask me in personal communication. Thanks, Tim88

Yes, I effectively meant the contrary with my precision: "religion-based historians" does not include historians who don't suffer from religious bias. PS. And I certainly do hope that in discussions here I won't have to always state the obvious, such as here that with "religion-based historians" I don't mean all religion-based historians!

You respectfully disagreed with what I did not say; but that's OK. I did not discuss the merits of a supernatural Jesus or Christianity and I was probably helped by the writings of and discussions with non-religious scholars. In reply to the OP's motivation as expressed in one of his last posts (which I cited with emphasis), I explained why and how the fact finding at that time had a big effect on me, exactly as he suggested.

Bold face mine: Indeed we are in a similar position as the ancient Greeks when they discussed if atoms existed (and apparently they concluded that atoms don't exist!). But I'm baffled by your remark that I put in bold. Space (Lorentz ether / Einstein's enhanced Lorentz ether) implies IMO presentism; and I illustrated with the car example how relativistic effects are real (apparent but not merely apparent or "un-real") according to that model. Please clarify by means of that same example how you drew the contrary conclusion as what I showed. Best regards, Tim88 [edit: precision]

Bold emphasis mine: Yes, exactly! The parts in bold are what happened to me many years ago. Much of the information that we get dished up through the media is inherently unreliable and often manipulated; but I used to trust supposed facts of science and history. Also, I used to be a Christian. As happens to so many scientists my faith dwindled over the years, and upon verification of many arguments, no evidence seemed to be hard evidence. Still, one argument of Christians is that Christianity could not have taken off if there had not been a Jesus who did miracles and whose resurrection motivated his followers to continue despite persecution. Consequently it may have relevance now to know what of the Jesus narrative is verifiable. But the facts which I discovered by digging deeper -deeper than ever before- showed that the existence of Christianity does not imply the existence of such a Jesus; and a non-miraculous Jesus who was killed in Jerusalem is less useful but not needed to explain the rise of Christianity. With that the question about a historical Jesus was sufficiently answered for me: I discovered that I had allowed myself to be fooled by religion and religion-based historians. When that had sunk in, I understood that I had to significantly adjust my method of verifying information. My approach to knowledge is indifferent to the topic, and the human nature of scientists is similar to the human nature of religious people. With my newly enhanced skepticism and with a little cynicism I thus verified much of my physics education and found that I had similarly been fooled by physics textbooks, which commonly distort history in order to dish up a narrative that the author finds pleasing - to the detriment of physics students. I would perhaps never have realised that I had been seriously misinformed in multiple areas because my method of information gathering was too "light", if I had not tried to answer the question about Jesus.

Hereby my excuses about my unnecessarily harsh comment of yesterday. I hope that my illustration explains how I felt and that it clarified better what this is about. I would say that it was the mathematician side that took over, in a discussion focused on cause and effect, real and apparent; most equations fail to indicate such things. Cause and effect is very much the physicist side. Real and apparent belong to natural philosophy but frequently pop up in physics discussions. Modern physics is kind of missing a limb. Now in detail, do you mean that according to block universe, time must be able to run backwards? I see no need for block adherents to claim such a thing, so I would not reckon it as a major flaw; it seems easily fixed by simply not making that claim. There is no problem to link to papers with a lot of math, but I don't see a reason to attack with much energy what may be a minor issue or even a straw man. Further, the term "field" originally meant to be a description of the distribution of a property (typically force vectors) over a region in Space. -http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/The-field-concepts-of-Faraday-and-Maxwell(2009).pdf You seem to have adopted the trend to replace the word "space" by "field" and thus subtly modified its meaning to include Space as a physical entity. Such an extreme economy of words only serves to reduce comprehension: "field" as a property of "Space" separates two different concepts that are blurred by combining them in a single word. You could say that the same is true for calling "ether" "space", but here the simplification seems innocent to me, and thus its simplification preferable. That happens to be a topic of discussion of the "mother" thread. Thus, if you write a space metric with (x y z) (and claim that it's a "field"?), unwittingly you are assuming Space without mentioning it. It's our clarifications about how "field", vacuum, Space or Spacetime (or whatever pop name you want to give it) are claimed to interact with objects and clocks that matters for this discussion. No interaction = no effect = no clock retardation. A popular explanation by means of Spacetime is that a clock is a Spacetime odometer; for such a model to be possibly convincing, Spacetime must be substantial - as it is in block universe (thus I write it here with a capital S). Another reminder: that either Space or Spacetime (or what names you want to give them) must be considered substantial is the starting assumption (postulate) of this discussion, following the current consensus in the mother thread "Is space-time a physical entity[..]". PS. I see that Memammal already commented on the entropy objection, with somewhat different arguments. And I really would like to see a better defense of the (evolving?) Spacetime "in action" with the car example, as I probably didn't present its case as well as can be done (e.g. explaining light propagation, limit speed c, simultaneity etc). As a matter of fact, as yet I didn't put to use the full explicative power of Space either (and I may not know all of it).

Thanks for the more detailed clarification of two Absolute Spacetime variants. BTW, I think that in the non-cited part there is probably an error: Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment does not prove that we can somehow change the past - but that's for another discussion! Anyway: while Bell suggested that a Lorentz ether may be the most straightforward solution, indeed this may not be obligatory even if a well documented and reproduced experiment would put the death nail in "local realism". I get the impression that the "evolving block" variant is philosophically somewhere in-between Lorentz ether and Minkowski block; if you (or someone else) could improve on my generic block universe description as applied on the car example (post 78 ), that would be extremely useful.The main use of such models is to see them in action! Maybe that will also partly address my questions concerning the causal explanatory capabilities of these variants,( post # 84).

OK. As an after thought, it may be useful to clarify that typically the flow resistance of a whole length of pipe should be calculated, between two points at which the pressure can be known or regulated. If you are familiar with electrical circuits, it's similar to calculating the current through a number of resistors in series, between two points of known Voltage.

Sorry, that's not the only thing we can do; it's poor, unscientific methodology that has not been used in this discussion. If a judge follows the method of only looking at the police consensus in their report in which a plausible scenario is cooked up, such a judge will be (or should be) held accountable for misjudgement. However: Yes indeed, the discussion here was based on evidence and counter evidence by experts as well as by well informed amateurs, as reviewed by experts.

Perhaps only an illustration can help. In a discussion group on an isolated island where nobody smokes, the topic is discussed "is this not a pipe?" by a member who has seen a painting of a pipe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images In the course of a very long discussion, the consensus is reached that there must be more to it: there must be a real, three dimensional pipe in order to enable smoke to come out of its orifice. One member therefore starts a "spin-off" of the generic "mother" discussion to compare two proposed real pipe models which compete in explaining the creation of the smoke, one with a duct along the length, the other with just a cavity. He refers to the original discussion and emphasizes that redoing the "mother" discussion in the "spin-off" discussion would be sabotage as that is off-topic, while it's of course welcome in the original discussion which is still taking place in parallel. Then the discussion of the pipe models is joined by a group member who says that although he prefers a variant of model two, neither model passes scrutiny. He even has a better model. The other group members listen with great expectation. He then picks up a ballpoint and creates with great care and much devotion a beautiful drawing of a pipe with smoke coming out of it. "Look here", he says; "A model is a description. The moment that you are starting to paint a pipe, you are painting a description; you can just as well use a pen. No paint, no duct, no cavity. Duct and cavity models are totally useless, they can do nothing. Useless to include it in the description of Reality." He ends with stressing the importance of taking drawing lessons.

I did not ask what are models to describe physical space with spacetime, nor did I ask to show how equations describe time dilation. Everyone who participates with me on explaining models of reality of SR is assumed to understand at least the mathematics of SR. Sorry for calling it hijacking, but it effectively was like hijacking, because you never understood the topic, nor my questions, only accidentally now and then being on topic. I wonder, did you actually understand the topic of the mother thread on spacetime from which this is a spin-off??

Regretfully all of it totally missed the point: you are here obviously arguing that there is no need to assume anything but mathematical spacetime. That is not the topic here, and none of it even addresses the arguments given in the thread on that topic, where your discussion belongs. Please stop posting off topic posts. I already told you several times. No, stop hijacking this discussion.

If block adds nothing as you think, then how can there be a problem with it? If it adds nothing, then the claims about block universe were just meaningless - and you cannot kill it under robust examination, as you pretended! But I still look forward to see your debunking of it.

I clarified relativity of simultaneity; if you don't understand that it's a convention, it means that you don't understand SR.

The Poisseuile equation tells you flow as function of pressure difference for a circular pipe. In your fist post you say that is what you need to know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagen%E2%80%93Poiseuille_equation Fill in the flow through the pipe (or the pressure drop over the pipe segment), as well as the other variables, and you obtain the required pressure (or flow). Note: if you require high flow rates, you should verify with the Reynolds number that the Poisseuille equation is the right one to use. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

With a little rearranging: OK. Obviously the EFE are in themselves not limiting, just as in my electrical example there is partial equivalence between circuits with a current source and with a voltage source. It's unclear what your aim was with those statements. The correct prediction of electron acceleration was done despite the fact that Lorentz and Einstein had the limitation that they did not know about the wave nature of the electron. While giving a little context, such historical facts have no direct bearing on the topic. It was understood that you have GR expertise. My question was aimed at the others who participate in this thread. This philosophical discussion is intended to be understandable for non-experts, but it would be too limiting to only cover SR effects. I cited Einstein's clarification of the coupling in the post to which you replied here; apparently you overlooked it. And it sounds as if you still don't understand the topic of this discussion (as well as the topic of discussion of the thread from which this is a spin-off). The models that we compare here are not supposed to have any "influence under SR metrics"; they are competing models for causing SR metrics - and except maybe in Harry Potter, mathematical equations cannot cause physical phenomena. Thus, if your "fields" are supposed to cause SR metrics, please demonstrate how they can do this (and thus purport to explain SR) by means of the car example at hand. I found the paper "Derivation of the Lorentz transformations" (which imply the PoR) from the conservation laws: Ives, Phil. Mag.36, 1945 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786444508520921?queryID=%24%7BresultBean.queryID%7D It should be noted that in that derivation Maxwell's laws are assumed as well. Relevant for this topic is the claim of improved physical understanding in the conclusion: Anyway, despite your claim that you don't need it, you seem to favour the evolving block universe. If so, can you answer my questions about block universe in post #84? [edit:] And please clarify how according to you, block universe doesn't survive under robust examination. As you could have read in this very thread, Einstein did make mention of Lorentz's ether in relativity theory. As for Maxwell, he certainly did mention it too. Please add those opinions to the mother thread where the discussion takes place if there is more to space than just mathematical space. In this spin-off we compare the explanatory power of competing models. The philosophical differences are huge. Maybe you can help with my questions about the block universe model ("spacetime field") in post #84? Just a side note: Probably you don't mean the "Lorentz Electron Theory" about which he published, but "Lorentz Ether Theory" of which he may never have have heard. I have no idea what "force-fitting" you imagine, but your understanding of the causal meaning of absolute space is certainly correct. I hoped to have sufficiently clarified that with the car example. Following your argumentation, Occam's razor would have said "ignore the atomic model" to Boltzmann (see post #20). And why would anyone need to "guess the master frame"?? Indeed, why would Boltzmann have needed to see atoms?? But that's again continuing the discussion that belongs in the other thread... Now you got me really puzzled! Motion is embedded in space-time as trajectories through space-time. And how can an entity cause effects from motion if motion is meaningless wrt it?? Concerning the 1-way speed of light convention, that originated with Poincare as it was the practical thing to do. Further: - Einstein never pretended that his convention matches reality - The concept that the 1-way speed of light is "truly c", does not match any model of reality that I know of. I suspect that it may be easy to disprove. [edit:] it's even in direct conflict with the PoR, if I correctly understand what you mean here. If you think that it can work (or that it is part of Minkowski block universe model), please clarify how by means of the car example, thanks! PS. Much so-called "ad-hoc"-ness of successful theories is mere mud-throwing due to lack of scientific arguments. Best regards, Tim88

Maybe you mean that distant simultaneity is a matter of inference based on convention? Yes indeed, that's a basic understanding of SR - and therefore not explicitly shown. The observations of those events by the cars are also events, and they occur later.

Thanks for reminding readers that the Stokes ether model (a kind of material "flowing Space") had been disproved. As also the tests designed to find Maxwell's ether failed, Lorentz made important modifications that led to new unheard of predictions. The tests designed to verify these new predictions (starting with electron motion in EM fields) are the tests of what later was named "Special Relativity" by Einstein. Not a trace of a flaw there! I already mentioned as part of the Lorentz ether explanation of SR that the (special) relativity principle can be derived from the conservation laws, based on the Lorentz ether (if you like I can give a reference to a paper in which the derivation is done). It's immediately understood if one realizes that the Lorentz ether mathematically corresponds to labeling an unknown frame "the Lorentz ether". So that's another misunderstanding. [edit:] I hope that you understand the block universe models better, because I am interested in your counter arguments to those. Perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of this topic? However I agree that the River model was an interesting one to mention as an example of another model that emulates many of the phenomena while at the same time being incorrect; I did not fully read these articles although I read some in the past. It reminds me of the fact that we can successfully model an ecological high quality voltage source as a current source with a low resistor in series; on the user side the phenomena are correct, but on the wall plug side (as well as by feeling the temperature) we can detect that the model does not correspond to reality. I already linked once or twice to the "mother" thread in which I elaborated on that question (as well as what we mean with "physical properties" etc), which belongs to the topic there, starting from: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97105-is-space-time-a-physical-entity-or-a-mathematical-model/page-11#entry944692 Again once more: this topic is the discussion-in-part of models that pretend to fill that gap. [edit:] and of course, if you can explain such things as time dilation by means of fields in physically empty space, please show us by giving a corresponding "Field interpretation" of the car example, explaining the the propagation of light as well as the relative and absolute aspects of time dilation. Good question. And as this thread is not particularly meant to answer my questions: How about the others who participate in this discussion, how well do you know GR? As for myself, I only know the Einstein field equations superficially (including some nice explanation by Baez). However I have a good understanding of Einstein's equivalence principle and the low field effects on Earth. In contrast to the flowing river model of space, Einstein obviously had in mind a non-flowing improvement to Lorentz's model [edit: added emphasis): What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state.

Models with incorrigible serious flaws are not suitable for this discussion; the flaws that I perceive in "flowing space" certainly do look serious. In contrast, I thought that both Lorentz ether ("Space") and Minkowski block universe ("Spacetime") are self consistent, matching observations and fundamental laws of physics, as enhanced by GR. If you can disprove either on such grounds, that will be illuminating (and you'll prove either Minkowski or Einstein wrong). Then, from being forced to phrase the block universe myself, I found that I have conceptual difficulties with the necessary homogeneity of block universe so that I'm not sure that it is self consistent; I wonder if it's a homogeneous inhomogeneous block of ice that cannot exist. But probably it's just that my mind is not managing understanding of such counter intuitive concepts! That may be something to explore in a fork from this thread. And from exploring the example, a related question crystallized about how a block universe explains light propagation. Maybe it just doesn't? Specifically, what is the block universe explanation and interpretation of the fact that observers can freely choose the one-way ("closing") speed of light, so that this speed can be made isotropic with respect to our preferred reference body, and anisotropic to others? "Proper time rate" cannot work as the light's proper time is "frozen", so what then? I did not ask if space is a physical thing; it was discussed in the "mother" thread where I presented strong arguments for the conclusion that there must be a physical space corresponding to mathematical space. This thread is a continuation in part for those who are interested to explore that insight in more detail and thus help improving understanding of relativity. In the "Absolute Space" view (or my version of it, as this is very philosophical), time is not a physical "thing" in itself but a human concept derived from the observation of physical processes; and processes are not things either. Meanwhile in the course of this discussion, a couple of questions about the block universe view came up [a little above in this post]; maybe you can clarify.

Lindner's paper on that: http://home.epix.net/%7Ehhlindner/Writings/Nature.pdf A model of reality that doesn't conserve energy, with ether forever flowing into the Earth is IMHO born dead...

Now discussions about details and even what sounds like Church doctrines (which have no place in science!) have already taken off, before coming to the point by means of a clear and simple, worked out example for newcomers in which the two historical interpretations of the Lorentz transformations are fairly compared. I hope we can postpone further discussions until after comparing their basic merits; that will be more useful for later visitors of this thread. Basic fact: similar to classical mechanics, you are free to choose the landscape as pretended "rest frame" (neglecting rotation), in which case your car is "moving". I will borrow from a recent thread a pictorial presentation of a fast car (original by bvr and improved by me): Different from common practice, we assume here that the car conductor has set up an inertial reference system according to the assumption that the car is in rest and the ground is moving under it. Moreover the car happens to be driving at the crazy speed of 0.86c. Let's say that there are clocks c1 and c2 above two openings in the car, and these clocks have been "Einstein synced". Now the car driver drops two balls, presumably simultaneously, so that from his perspective : _________________________ | | | |_ | ___ c1 c2 ___| / \--- ----1m---- ---/ \ _______\___/___o__________o___\___/_________ <- v According to the car the balls were dropped simultaneously at 1 m distance, so that they also hit the moving ground at 1 m distance. According to the ground however the car is length contracted, and the balls are not dropped at the same time so that they hit the ground at different times: _____________ | | | | | | v ----> / \- -----o-/ \ ____________\_/___o_____\_/_____________________________________ ______________ | | | | | | v -----> / \- ----- -/ \ __________________o________\_/2m_____o_\_/____________________________ Distance between the corresponding events as measured with a ruler on Earth in blue. Now the differing worldviews: 1. Stationary ether (Absolute Space model): When you are driving your car, in general both your car and the landscape are in motion, resulting in what may be figuratively called different perspectives of the same reality. This is an essential point to keep in mind before reading on. Only for simplicity of explanation we'll first pretend in this introduction that the landscape is, by pure chance, in "absolute rest". 1a. The car is then Lorentz contracted due to the car's motion through space, as would be expected if fundamentally all matter consists of some kind of waves. In this example one could (in principle) measure that the car is half its proper length. 1b. The car's synchronization is in this case also messed up due to the car's motion, as can be easily understood by working out the timing errors from the light pulses as they propagate through space (we may ignore the air). Thus the car's synchronization is chosen such that it seems as if the one-way speed of light (also called "closing speed") is the same in both directions. 1c. As per the relativity principle these effects combine so that according to the car conductor it seems as if the ground is length contracted. Moreover, just as was the case in Newtonian mechanics, the same relationships occur between two reference systems in uniform translational motion. In other words, both inertial reference systems provide in general a somewhat "distorted" perspective on reality. Note that these combined effects are not a "conspiracy", as the PoR follows from the conservation laws. 1d. Moreover, the clocks of the car truly tick slower; this is physically understandable by means of the "light clock" illustration (e.g. Simple_inference_of_time_dilation ). Due to the car's (mis)synchronization of clocks (together with its length contraction), it seems from the car's perspective as if instead the ground clocks run slow. 2. Block universe (Absolute Spacetime model): When you are driving your car, you are selecting (or experiencing) a slice out of Spacetime; motion is a perception caused by your Spacetime trajectory. 2a. The car appears Lorentz contracted to half its length from the perspective of the ground frame due to the car's trajectory through Spacetime which is at a different spacetime angle than the ground trajectory. The physical explication as to why this is the case is that "time" is an unexplained illusion from our senses. Everything is just trajectories through Spacetime that we can "slice" in different ways. 2b. The car uses the standard synchronization convention, such that the spacetime trajectory of light relative to the car appears to be symmetric in both directions. Also here one is free to choose the "angle", that is, the apparent one-way speed of light (also called "closing speed") relative to the car. 2c. The relativity principle is automatically built into this model. Here the relativistic effects are due to the different trajectories, affecting the recorded amount of "space" and "time" as if an odometer is tracing Spacetime. 2d. While the clocks in the car in reality don't tick at all, the perceived tick rate is just as truly the normal rate as those of that of clocks on the ground. Time dilation is again a matter of perspective, due to the different trajectories. A peculiarity is that a longer Spacetime trajectory between two points corresponds to less proper time increase. Yes, we should definitely include that fact - and to round it off we can easily make it a "twin paradox" scenario. Let's just take a nearly infinitely sharp turn (ignoring the impossibly strong acceleration effects) and drive back without changing speed. Follow again the differing interpretations. Absolute Space model: For clarity of discussion only, we'll again first explain with the simplification that the ground is by chance in "absolute rest". 1e. The car is just as much length contracted as before. However, this time the car driver notices that his reference system has been messed up: the speed of light doesn't seem the same anymore in both directions. This follows directly if one considers that the true speed of light is the same as before, while the absolute effect of speed on the car's clocks is approximately the same (in this case the true clock rates can in theory be kept identical). Consequently the observational symmetry has been broken, and the absolute effects resulting from speed relative to the ether can thus be detected. 1f. If the car now passes clocks on the ground that it passed earlier in the other direction, the driver will notice that his clocks are behind on the ground clocks. That is as expected, since his clocks (in this simplified case) truly ticked slower all the time. As the Lorentz transformations form a group similar to the Galilean transformations, the exact same phenomena are observed between a car in motion relative to a ground that itself is also in motion. While this point may be less intuitive due to our limited mental capability to conceive such complexity of different relative motions and effects, it is not too difficult to verify this fact mathematically. Absolute Spacetime model: 2e. From the grounds perspective, the car is just as much length contracted as before because its trajectory has changed but the relative space-time angle is the same. However, this time the car driver notices that his reference system has been messed up: the speed of light doesn't seem the same anymore in both directions. This is because the car has made a turn in Spacetime, changing its trajectory through it. That is an absolute effect; the clocks were synchronized in relation with a different trajectory. 2f. If the car now passes clocks on the ground that it passed earlier in the other direction, the driver will notice that his clocks are behind on the ground clocks. That is as expected, since the Spacetime trajectory is longer between the same events (a curved line compared with a straight line). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Space and Spacetime are thus competing concepts of a not directly detectable "background" on which events take place. Studiot's book reference pretends that "block universe" is the "mainstream" view but I don't think so; I agree with ajb that most people working in modern physics are less worried with the philosophical implications than they are with matching theory with observation. Important philosophical consequences of the "Absolute Space" view of reality are that time and distance have not been totally robbed from their classical, intuitive aspects; however, physical length in the direction of motion and time rate are affected by motion through Space. In other words, only Space is causal in that view. Important philosophical consequences of the "Absolute Spacetime" view of reality are that time and distance have been totally robbed from their classical, intuitive aspects: space and time form a single physical entity (studiot's book reference: "like a giant block of ice"), in which at least all events in the past and present (and commonly also the future, but that may not be necessary) "coexist and are frozen in their locations in space and time". In the Spacetime view, Space and Time are coexisting causal physical entities, or even different aspects of a single causal physical entity. Please tell me if I made any errors. We should still give examples of interpretations of energies as well as GR effects. And the Flowing Space model that Mordred just introduced will also be interesting to discuss. [edit:] I'm not sure if it is totally compatible with GR.

That's a again a wrong assumption. Traffic lights are a very poor example for oscillation, and anyway they work on electron motion. I'll clarify this here once more. Depending on our definition of time as well as our philosophy, one may conclude that certainly, even by mere definition, "motion and time are joined at the hip", as geordief put it; however one may alternatively conceive of time without motion, and speculate that this might correspond to physical reality. With that I leave this discussion; Yes, chin-chin

I think that's almost correct. Lorentz and Einstein did not "try" to understand, they understood already Sr and GR in that way; and field theory cannot replace that understanding as already explained in the mother thread. That's why people who were looking for alternatives found refuge in block universe concepts, although probably many don't realize the philosophical consequences. PS. Note also that "our modern understanding" of philosophy is mostly baseless or based on unscientific arguments. Philosophy is not physics!

Right - with added emphasis: