Scott Mayers Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 Your questions about space are a good start. Many scientists today don't like philosophy but is what is needed more now than ever if it is to progress beyond the limits of institutional authoritarianism. It is also needed if one is to internalize what you learn rather than restricting it to the 'faith' in those claiming authority wherever they exist. Space is hard to define without reference to what 'matters' to us humans. This has lead those supporting the strict 'empirical' approach to refraining from definitions that cannot be shared by the senses. Given we seem to not notice space directly without other matter as a reference, many prefer to ignore speculating upon what the actual nature of space is other than as a referent in mathematical terms where the units of space are describable strictly in terms of some material standard. Originally, the ancients termed this in various ways depending on which preferential philosophy they held over others. For some, the word that has come down to us as "spirit" was one such word. Another was "chaos" (where we get the word, "gas" from). If you look at the religious texts or scriptures, the "holy spirit'", by the Judao-Christian roots was likely intentionally the reference to space and is what permeated everywhere as the 'fluid above' (now written as "the waters above" in Genesis) versus the 'fluid below' (liquids as "the waters below"). The 'spirit' part was a way to describe the apparent power of the air that we can sense but cannot directly observe. Thus even their own kind of thinking was 'empirical' if you don't treat the present religious interpretation passed down to mean that some God literally 'hovered' above the waters below. The mystery was about what wind was. They would have also noticed that you seemed to require inhaling this spirit if only to continue to live. As such, 'spirit', was more of a word to describe a PROPERTY about fluids. They originally divided reality into only fluids or solids. The word for solid, actually originally from the roots of Judaism.....the Egyptians....was "adam" (Atum) and Aten. [Think, "a-thing" in our way of describing a something.] The 'aeather' or 'ether',where we also get the other) was another type of property descriptor that just meant that which was other than (what) matter(s). Einstein's option to approach his theory was in light of the Michelson-Morley experiments and a means to try to avoid even controversially having to deal with whether space was itself a 'matter'. Note though that while in science treat this concept as disproved, this just represents a good example of how we have a problem with modern institutions: Quantum mechanics has now re-introduced this as existing but evades redacting the belief that the luminiferous ether exists. This is proof of how the institutes themselves creatively protect the past heroes of their own history by forcing modern scientists to require preserving old theories by simply creating new words that hide the truth. This is similar to how a culturally accepted word about something evolves such that the old term is abandoned but replaced by a new word that lacks present emotional and derogatory meanings through time. Einstein thus treated space like a kind of mathematical address rather than something directly real. This would be similar to treating the contents of some address in computers as a mere pointer to its content. If the content of data in a memory space is assimilated as 'matter', then the address acts as the pointer to that data without being concerned about what or where that actual address is. Thus, you can use a random array of memory units that can have data located arbitrarily anywhere and treat the 'spacial' connections between data as defined through a specific program. For instance, if we have "Matter A" at some linear distance from "Matter B", instead of treating that distance as 'real' (the space in between the two), we assign a number based on some unit of other material standard as that distance. The actual matter can be treated as having a fixed address arbitrarily assigned to some random accessible array (RAM) and the data itself can be programmed to differ in reality as only a virtual distance. Although this may be useful, I think it inappropriately appeals (oddly) to the lack of some to conceptualize space,...the lowest common denominator of any set of people negotiating what is agreed upon as 'objective'. If one actually thinks space doesn't exist other than this virtual reality, I interpret them as having a religious mindset not dissimilar to how what the ancients may have considered "secular" and "scientific wisdom" of their day that devolves into some interpretation of space as having literal magical 'spirit' (the Holy Spirit, for instance) or that the 'ether' (as 'the other') as that place called "heaven" beyond our capacity to discover until after we die. ["heaven" --> "even" --> "Eve": meant "that which follows"] How would someone literally interpret space as merely a virtual background? You cannot have a 'speed limit' if it has no-thing to limit it!! I'm sure even Einstein realized this. If you beg speed of any-thing to be limited and REAL, you require to find both the inferred distance and time to both be treated as 'real'. Distance is sufficient to treat as based upon a material description objectively: you just point to some standard of matter and use its length as what is 'materially real'; but then if you restrict space to be a 'nothing' without matter, then TIME has to be treated as 'real'. That is, you cannot have any unreal numerator nor denominator because it would make "speed" as defined by these components irrational and likely unreal. Yet later we learn that Einstein did have philosophical reflection about whether time was real or not. I understood he and his co-philosophers eventually argued it cannot be real. Regardless, Einsteins' theory of Special (and partly General) Relativity required treating time as literally what is 'real'. Thus we get the interpretation of time itself as what changes when one approaches the speed of light. This HAS to be a misinterpretation if one is to remain consistent to treating matter as 'real', though. Scientists (theoretical) are often not aware today of their own hypocritical means of jumping between the interpretation of X as being real in one instance while unreal in another. For example, you cannot use the acceleration experiments using clocks in transition through space (anywhere) as proof THAT time is what is itself real and what is being altered. This is because you can rationally argue that the clocks being used are what is doing the changing as it is accelerating through a fixed background (and thus real) space. If time is what is the real factor of change ONLY (exclusive of being matter itself), then it is admitting that that matter is NOT acting 'real' by our local standards of observation of what a unit measure of matter stands for: the distance unit used in the speed ratio. Space 'expands' also cannot mean anything without pretending to ignore other meanings elsewhere. Unlike how we limit extraneous factors when trying to understand some experiment, you cannot remove a fundamental common definition of space, matter, and time without being hypocritically contradictory. So space IS real. Space is what we define matter to be 'occupying'. If space as a fixed reality is presumed false, than the matter that is depending upon that spacial definition is false! Matter cannot exist either without space, contrary to the stupidity of treating a time as existing when matter (and energy) existed without it. -1
Eise Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 21 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said: Many scientists today don't like philosophy but is what is needed more now than ever if it is to progress beyond the limits of institutional authoritarianism. It is also needed if one is to internalize what you learn rather than restricting it to the 'faith' in those claiming authority wherever they exist. Oh no, not again, Scott. 23 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said: Scientists (theoretical) are often not aware today of their own hypocritical means of jumping between the interpretation of X as being real in one instance while unreal in another. Yes, theoretical physicists are so stupid... .
Scott Mayers Posted October 15, 2018 Author Posted October 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Eise said: Oh no, not again, Scott. Yes, theoretical physicists are so stupid... . How do you get your presumed interpretation here? I happen to consider myself a 'theoretical physicist'. If you're just trying to malign me personally, you should perhaps ask why you come here with an anonymous label. Are you trying to hide from something? If one has contention with SOME (even if it is potentially some MAJORITY viewpoint) 'theoretical scientists', does that imply one's lack of popularity suffices them to be considered at fault? Please take my arguments at hand, not whatever 'belief' you want to impose others to hold against me. Otherwise you're making it personal, political, and certainly unscientific. 58 minutes ago, Eise said: Special relativity, when defining distances in spacetime, takes time into it (but multiplies it with c, the velocity of light, so it also becomes 'space-like') velocity = displacement of distance/time. Yet "spacetime" to you is merely time that cancels itself begging the velocity itself is more real? "Spacetime" is just the extended use of time AS A DIMENSION along with the other defaulted 3-dimensions. If you extend this to your response about the dimensions of space to be mere coordinates, is time as the fourth also fictitious to you? 1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said: A geometric relationship between reference frames in spacetime. In the simplest case of inertial motion, two reference frames being in relative motion quite simply means that they are rotated by a (hyperbolic) angle wrt each other in spacetime. Motion is purely a geometric phenomenon. Zeno's paradoxes were pure 'geometric' that required real physics: "paradox" is a contradiction that is (or appears to be) real. In one, he argued that movement itself could not exist logically. Because movement requires at least some change in distance in some unit of time, if given any two distances of where something is to where something was, there must be some point between every real distance. If something begins with zero relative change (between any two 'times'), for any positive distance of change when something begins to move requires an infinite acceleration (in reality). Thus, the paradox here is that if movement is true anywhere and at any time, there can be no time nor place where anything is NOT not moving! The 'paradox' is resolved if and only if there is no point in space that is ever actually unchanging. A second paradox with a real resolution was about imagining two scenarios about a dart in some defined space. In one, (an imaginary control condition), an arrow is imagined to be held in that defined specific space. In the secondary condition, a flying arrow is imagined to be passing through that exact specific space but 'frozen' in time only. The question was what difference should each mean when if in the first case, we 'let go' of that arrow held in space versus the one moving horizontally. The arrow we 'let go' would drop down while the moving arrow continues. How could this be possible unless something is transferred TO the arrow? This is resolved by Newton's laws. The first paradox is resolved by Einstein. The actual 'shape' of the arrow's length is less than the one being held in the same place horizontally (and width increased vertically). The energy is transferred and held in the arrow elastically. Both are 'real' examples of change that is required to exist in every part of a very 'real' space.
Eise Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said: I happen to consider myself a 'theoretical physicist'. Remembers me of the bard in Asterix, Cacafonix: he himself thinks his singing is great, all the other greatly appreciate when he keeps his mouth shut. As answers on good questions, like the OP, should be according to established science, I reported your postings to shift them into 'Speculations'.
Strange Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said: The 'aeather' or 'ether',where we also get the other) was another type of property descriptor that just meant that which was other than (what) matter(s). The words 'aether' and 'other' are totally unrelated. The former is from the Greek word 'aithein', to ignite. So your proposed meaning is just something you made up. 1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said: if it is to progress beyond the limits of institutional authoritarianism. It is also needed if one is to internalize what you learn rather than restricting it to the 'faith' in those claiming authority wherever they exist. Ridiculous. 1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said: Originally, the ancients termed this in various ways depending on which preferential philosophy they held over others. For some, the word that has come down to us as "spirit" was one such word. Another was "chaos" (where we get the word, "gas" from). Irrelevant. We are talking about physics, not ancient philosophy. Quote Einstein thus treated space like a kind of mathematical address rather than something directly real. This would be similar to treating the contents of some address in computers as a mere pointer to its content. Your analogy is wrong. It is like treating the location in memory as a pointer to its content. Which is obviously exactly what it is. 1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said: ["heaven" --> "even" --> "Eve": meant "that which follows"] More fake etymology. 1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said: How would someone literally interpret space as merely a virtual background? You cannot have a 'speed limit' if it has no-thing to limit it!! Your exclamation marks don't make this claim any more plausible. 2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said: If space as a fixed reality is presumed false, than the matter that is depending upon that spacial definition is false! That is a non-sequitur. If space is simply a set of measurements, that doesn't stop matter being real. (Depending, of course, on what one means by 'real'). 1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said: I happen to consider myself a 'theoretical physicist'. Does anyone else? Do you have any qualifications? Published papers? I haven't found any posts by you containing any physics (some vague waffle based on a misunderstanding of relativity and quantum theory was the nearest). 1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said: Yet "spacetime" to you is merely time that cancels itself No one said that. Is that a deliberate (dishonest) straw man or an inability to understand written English? 1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said: Thus, the paradox here is that if movement is true anywhere and at any time, there can be no time nor place where anything is NOT not moving! Movement is relative (as Galileo observed). So, in some sense everything is moving (relative to something) but also everything is (can be considered to be) stationary relative to something. 14 minutes ago, Eise said: Remembers me of the bard in Asterix, Cacafonix: he himself thinks his singing is great, all the other greatly appreciate when he keeps his mouth shut. As answers on good questions, like the OP, should be according to established science, I reported your postings to shift them into 'Speculations'. Looks like they should go straight to Trash.
Scott Mayers Posted October 15, 2018 Author Posted October 15, 2018 24 minutes ago, Eise said: Remembers me of the bard in Asterix, Cacafonix: he himself thinks his singing is great, all the other greatly appreciate when he keeps his mouth shut. As answers on good questions, like the OP, should be according to established science, I reported your postings to shift them into 'Speculations'. I expected as much. The abusive character of your 'authoritative power' against me here in the past (like hiding my credible arguments including deleting them) has proven you are NOT sincerely of a 'scientific' mind. You know.....expecting one to be able to only know 'scientific truth by experiment, rational argument, and independent verification. But then you know that I'm speaking in ways that are sufficiently logical to expose you.....and why you opt to do whatever you can to hide content, use false 'reputation' flags as thought they represent actual 'scientific' credibility, and dictate reality like a church. I'm having the last laugh though! 26 minutes ago, Strange said: 2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said: The 'aeather' or 'ether',where we also get the other) was another type of property descriptor that just meant that which was other than (what) matter(s). The words 'aether' and 'other' are totally unrelated. The former is from the Greek word 'aithein', to ignite. So your proposed meaning is just something you made up. Aether theories (also known as ether theories) in physics propose the existence of a medium, the aether (also spelled ether, from the Greek word (αἰθήρ), meaning "upper air" or "pure, fresh air"), a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic ... Aether theories - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories 27 minutes ago, Strange said: 2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said: if it is to progress beyond the limits of institutional authoritarianism. It is also needed if one is to internalize what you learn rather than restricting it to the 'faith' in those claiming authority wherever they exist. Ridiculous. ...and I'll have no need to reflect further on your own superiority here. -1
Strange Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said: Aether theories (also known as ether theories) in physics propose the existence of a medium, the aether (also spelled ether, from the Greek word (αἰθήρ), meaning "upper air" or "pure, fresh air"), a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic ... You seem to have serious reading comprehension problems. I know what the aether is. I was pointing out that your claim that the words "aether" and "other" are related is completely bogus. Therefore, your argument "that which was other than (what) matter(s)" is nonsense. 7 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said: The abusive character of your 'authoritative power' against me here in the past (like hiding my credible arguments including deleting them) Eise has no power to hide or delete your comments. You are delusional.
Eise Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said: The abusive character of your 'authoritative power' against me here in the past I have no authoritative power on any forum. I am just a member here, as you are. So I have not hidden anything. On this forum your 'Nobelprice winning' posting about an error in special relativity was moved to 'Speculations' (not to trash): Einstein was wrong: My Theory of Relativity (you see, it is still there, it is not hidden at all). I was not even a member of this forum those days. You also presented your 'Einstein was wrong' at CFI, and I took the task of debunking your ideas, because there was no physicist at all there. And then it was you who started deleting your postings. And for the record: I also was just a member there. No 'authoritative power'. But for one thing I have to thank you: I got to learn about this forum because at CFI you referred to it, and after a while I became a member here. Edited October 15, 2018 by Eise 1
Scott Mayers Posted October 15, 2018 Author Posted October 15, 2018 17 minutes ago, Strange said: 25 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said: Aether theories (also known as ether theories) in physics propose the existence of a medium, the aether (also spelled ether, from the Greek word (αἰθήρ), meaning "upper air" or "pure, fresh air"), a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic ... You seem to have serious reading comprehension problems. I know what the aether is. I was pointing out that your claim that the words "aether" and "other" are related is completely bogus. Therefore, your argument "that which was other than (what) matter(s)" is nonsense. Okay, given you are such an expert on comprehension, what is your point? If I am or am not correct about my etymology, what is the significance of your disagreement? You appear to be nitpicking with suspicious intent to harass and not to contribute to aiding in helping the OP understand his own speculation. If you don't understand me, that's fine. But OWN it as your own opinion, not some presumption of universal agreement. 1 hour ago, Eise said: I reported your postings to shift them into 'Speculations'. Sorry, I saw this. I don't know you and this appears to suggest you had some power on your suggestions. If you didn't want this impression, why bother stating this at all? ....just do it. viz. I will be submitting this reply by clicking on "submit reply" with great enthusiasm.
Eise Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 8 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said: Sorry, I saw this. I don't know you and this appears to suggest you had some power on your suggestions. If you didn't want this impression, why bother stating this at all? ....just do it. I did. But it is not my decision. And you know me. I have driven you to despair at CFI, so that you started deleting your posts about relativity there. 2 minutes ago, studiot said: I have reported S Mayers first post as a completely off topic attempt at thread hijack. Then we agree... I think the OP is a serious question, it needs a serious answer. At least I and Markus tried.
Scott Mayers Posted October 15, 2018 Author Posted October 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Eise said: I did. But it is not my decision. And you know me. I have driven you to despair at CFI, so that you started deleting your posts about relativity there. Then we agree... I think the OP is a serious question, it needs a serious answer. At least I and Markus tried. Interesting. I recall that. It was the only time I opted to do that anywhere. (not used to the trollers at that time). What I do recall though from both there and here of the post I TITLED, "Einstein was wrong" is that the very first sentence I wrote in it was, "Well, not really,..." and I expanded on my meaning. But some simply didn't like the title and ignored the content. I had copies of that title there and here. One is still extant. I shouldn't have posted it as I wasn't aware at the time that it was frowned upon to double post on distinct sites.
Recommended Posts