geordief

If we stripped Relativity's core predictions out of our expectations (a misguided "thought thought" experiment,perhaps)...or in the heat death scenario perhaps

What if (erroneously) no account were taken of relative motion or gravitational attraction? In that unrealistic scenario all synchronized clocks would agree for ever ,wouldn't they? A universal now could not be disproved then.....

Is a universal "now" more of a philosophical idea? How could it be defined in physical terms (as a devil's advocate)?

Yes I knew that was how "event" was used **. There is no such a concept as an "empty" event (in that sense)-a point in space time where nothing actually occurs? Are fields always interacting at every conceivable point in spacetime? **Howard Roark from the com site gave me a thick ear over that

So "stationary" vis a vis particular events?(the centre could be anywhere that is stationary wrt that event?) Do all FOR's need to contain at least one physical event?

Is that because there are (in the model) an infinite number of possible Spacetime frames of reference ,each centred on any chosen event ? The task is to "hop" from any one such FOR to any other?

Does the spacetime model only apply to classical theories? I mean is there a corresponding model in QM that could be (or is?) described as incorporating "spacetime"*? * or something similar....

I I think the (artistic) creative process would wither for lack of external stimulation (and the feedback process) It may not be a conscious action but I feel that that kind of creativity depends on a relationship with the individual's milieu ,as well as his or her own appreciation of his or her own navigation in those waters. Otherwise it is robotic and sterile. .I used to believe in "art for art's sake" but no longer do. It is all "performance art " at one remove or another. (Still thinking about "playfulness".I didn't realize this was such a Pandora's box)

If you find similarities in the way Israel treats its perceived minorities and the way Jews were themselves treated in the past it's an obvious minefield. And yet Israel's victims/enemies can hardly be blamed for pointing out that these similarities do exist. Also fair to point out that Israel is effectively at permanent war with its neighbours in a conflict where there has been right on both sides from the outset (who asked the inhabitants of the lands granted to Israel if they were happy to shoulder the collective guilt of the international community?) As for the Labour party, I understand there have been clear instances (the mural) of antisemitic views being expressed (sadly that's inevitable) but the argument seems to be whether Labour's leadership has its "heart in it " to combat it ,taking into account its lukewarm support of Israel under Corbyn (imo) I am also confused as to the real extent of antisemitism in the Labour party but have also recently come to support Israel less and less as I am coming to view it as something close to a theocracy since religious extremists there seem to have been given free play to set up settlements in areas that were not any part of the original dispensation after WW2 but territories taken in an admittedly defensive war (1967)

You can get haylage too. Sweet https://m.wikihow.com/Make-Haylage

So "descriptions rather than definition ? There is no such "thing" ;more a confluence of behaviours? I would say so I would actually,even if only in concept. Is playfulness essential to the behaviour? It is very fundamental to how we are and how we develop. Animals play too,of course.

I am wondering if anyone here has an opinion as to whether such a thing as "the creative impulse" could be rigorously defined. Is a third party (the first two parties being the creator of the object and the object itself) essential to the process ? My own view is that the meaning of the term cannot be tied down but I also wonder can anything at all integral to the process be stated with a degree of certainty... Is there anything about a creative act or thought that definitively sets it apart from other such actions or thoughts?

Are the observer and the observed two facets of a same dynamic continuum? Does the observed change the observer and the observer change the observed? As someone (Ophiolite ) said we are the universe looking at itself (philosophy or physics?)

I half addressed that earlier to say that I didn't think this but gave no reason... apart from bias. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115336-time-and-space/?do=findComment&comment=1061119 Perhaps it might be the case that a reality can be understood as both subjective and objective. The world does indeed continue indifferent to our observing it but is a different place for our doing so (observing it) . We do all observe a different reality but we also share (and are a facet of) the same objective reality without a contradiction.

Apparently it is now. But when we look back on the astonishing discoveries that have been made in all sorts of areas of science and physics it does not seem to me unlikely that at some (perhaps quite near) point that that particular mystery will be resolved (to be replaced by another head scratcher) The way forward ,it seems to me is simply by making and assimilating further observations .They are the two headed sword that clears the path ahead but makes an almighty new mess as it does so.(if metaphors can be thus mangled )

But something is real that has led us to model it as a curvature (of coordinates) ,isn't it ?We don't know what it is and anyway the question of what was behind that would repeat itself,wouldn't it? Does the definition of "real" as a modeling process that repeats itself (like turtles) allow us to actually better define what we mean when we say "real"? (a bit like the calculus of the limits)

Not sure about a fascist state as it has been under physical attack and has a duty to its citizens to protect them. But a quasi state yes. An exceptional carve out. The treatment of Jews (and others) by Germany during and before the war has led up to this unsustainable position where no perfect position can be hoped for. That is not to say that within this intolerable situation elements within Israel cannot make the situation even worse (They are now) This latest development does betray the Ideals on which Israel was presumably founded. Edit I missed "evolving." That is a genuine fear.

Nothing to add. It seems like we might have a similar approach. Perhaps you can point out any bad errors or misstatements (it is all the fashion these days ) in my own past 3 or 4 answers in this thread. Do you like my "model of the modeled" idea.? What about my idea that models are a subset of natural processes and not set apart from them? Not entirely sure about your last point,which (I italicised) .....although I would like it to be correct.

Still,I have heard people say that the universe does not need our observation for its processes to continue their merry way (in response to some who claim that things only happen when we observe them) I agree** with that former view and wonder whether we can extrapolate (maybe it's just an analogy rather than an extrapolation) and say that "the modeled" exists in spite of our error prone attempts to model it (albeit,apparently more and more closely) As an aside I am interested that you say that the electron field permeates all space as I had been wondering if it was the case. Is one of the theories that this field is quantized? Would that place a limit on its "range"? **why I do agree apart from innate bias ,I can't say.

I think I meant "underlying" or "responsible" ,something behind the facade. (is that turtle territory?) Actually, are there different kind of charged particles? Are there particles that carry the weak/strong force which repel or attract similarly to electric charges? No ,but physics (physical models) are,to my mind a subset of natural phenomena and so the "is a donkey real" question could perhaps be seen as category of thing/name** question that bore a relation to the model vs the modeled question (well it is a question I have asked myself) which does seem to crop up from time to time on these forums. (it seems easy to mistake the model for the modeled and this gets pointed out occasionally ,esp when it comes to spacetime) **can the "name" be considered as a model of the "thing" in a kind of way?

You know something (different) exists. It is just a matter of putting a name to it. Yes there could be any amount of phenomena causing the effect (interaction) but we only give a name for those we can distinguish between (in this case I am guessing there is but one kind of electric field but I could well be mistaken) We could apply a similar argument to "is a donkey real?" We know something there is real ,but is it a donkey? Maybe its an ass.. or a facsimile or Trump on one of his better days. I wonder if the onus is not rather on anyone who doubts whether any particular thing is real (as opposed to "exactly so") rather than on the common sense main on Maine St who knows something is real but doesn't claim to be able to say what exactly it is (even it it seems blindingly obvious)

Sure . Well I answered yes ,that electric fields exist physically and are not a model. Are you saying that they are just a model? To expand I would say (not wishing to presume as my education is nothing to write home about) that "electric field" could equally refer to the abstract model as to the "real thing" that I am claiming it is. Language is inadequate to draw the distinction (well it has not seemed necessary to use language to draw the distinction ,maybe except in a roundabout way) But ,yes it seems to me that we can **feel an electric field and so would assume it was a real thing just like any other (but would not feel the same way about the abstract model that attempts to describe it on its own terms) **eg we can feel electrostatic fields when they make our hair stand up

Yes. I know when they were first discovered they seemed magical (seemed like action at a distance) but does that not apply to any new discovery? Do colour blind people doubt that colours are real?

Does that Feynman quote really only apply to quantum systems? We wouldn't talk the same way about a cat in a box** would we ? The cat would be real and the box would be real . Not that it would be necessarily helpful to point that out but it would be pretty indefensible and bewildering to say that things we interact with on an everyday basis were somehow "not real" or "almost real" would it? ** not that cat