Re: Is "Spacetime" a misnomer?


Mike wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Barry wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
You are indeed doing something right,at least from the theorist's point
of view,remember all things are relative but the paycheck is absolute.

The damnest thing is that there are hugely productive avenues for
people who wish to pursue the Earth's dynamic motions and processes in
terms of geology and climatology.Whatever attraction the older guys and
their time travel agendas had on people of the 20th century,most people
have grown up and taken interest in a closer link between life sciences
and the great cycles which condition the behavior and existence of life
on the planet.The one thing missing is the astronomical facet as it
applies to terrestial sciences but I guess the relativistic puppet show
which is an offshoot of Newton's celestial sphere geometry has to much
blind fascination for all.

Again.you mean no harm.


You know, you're right.

As a child, I took a degree in Maths/Physics.

Back when I was in my late-forties, I quit work and went back to
University to take a degree in Geography, specializing in climate. I was
fascinated by how "real" it was, compared with discussions of
hypothetical black holes and their hypothetical properties.

I had an opportunity to work with a branch of the Canadian Government
on a project searching for a linkage between Prairie wheat yields and
North Pacific Ocean Surface temperatures.

Unfortunately I had some major personal crises in my life and I let the
opportunity slip away.

At the same time, being back at school reawakened an interest in physics
and helped me see it from a new perspective.

What a shock it was.

Barry

There must be a severe reading disability present with people who base
the exotic 1905 junk on a rejection of 'aether'.They only have to read
Newton's comments below to kill that avenue stone dead thereby cutting
the feedbackloop between absolute space/aether with the tortured
relativistic language.

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial
bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of
bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which
their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since
matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually
interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314] weaken them, there
is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all.
Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Optics 1704


Einstein just repeated Newton's statement and suddenly people forgot it
was Newton who first showed, boith philosophically and mathematically,
that the concept of aether is not required for solving dynamical motion
problems. It is interesting that Newton was more specific than Einstein
in insisting that gravity is the predominant force in the macro scale
Universe.


Ah,but you see Mike,the great trick of Albert that everyone
conveniently went along with was associating aether with 'absolute
space',too clever by half but not one tenth as clever as what Newton
had in mind for those absolute/relative terms.

"Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him
rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton
might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether'';" Albert
1920

I do not mind that you go along with Albert's rejection of an aether
that Newton had already rejected,what I do mind is that you are
unfamiliar with what Isaac was really up to with those definitions.It
is a geometric thing therefore you are unlikely to enjoy the Newtonian
maneuvering based on celestial sphere geometry,'curved space' if you
like.




It appears now that Einstein had everal misconceptions about these
concepts and even a serious lack of knowledge of what other people have
accomplished in the field (Lorentz, Poincare and even Newton/Leibniz)
to even be accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal.


The idea is to recover the lost astronomical working principles of
astronomy from the overbearing 'scientific method' approach.Nobody in
their right mind would reject processes and celestial dynamics however
if anything has emerged from centuries of bouncing off Newton's
celestial sphere geometry is that the fables which caused the exotic
1905 concept to emerge may highlight gross reading disabilities rather
than any conceptual finepoints.

The breathless statements of Newton/absolute space and its rejection in
1905 looks less than exciting today,what is exciting is that
absolute/relative space based on Newton's resolution for retrogrades
should generate closer inspection.



Maybe there is some other time in history when people were entirely
mesmerised to the extent that they positively refuse to believe what is
before them and Newton's rejection of a 'aether' is pretty explicit ,it
does not mean he was right or wrong,it only means that dumping aether
on him as 'absolute space' is for those pronne to wishful thinking and
childish behavior.



Absolute space and aether are two different concepts, so dinstinct that
only a crackpot like Einstein could confuse.

It only means that people are not really good enough to spot what Isaac
was really up to,not by a way of validation but as a means to recover
productive working principles for ourselves and future generations.

People do not care abour relativity or the people who keep that
conceptual corpse dancing so why should you..

Someone pays the bill. It's like the reconstruction of Lebanon.
Somebody else will pay.

Mike

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nature of inertia (first law)
    ... >> in three dimensions and provided an absolute reference frame. ... > no way to observe that due to relativity, so Newton suggested to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: ABOUT THE NEWTON AND EINSTEIN RELATIVITIES.
    ... IN EINSTEIN AND NEWTON THEORIES ... So far by participating in the discussions about the relativity, ... earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean ... dimension or measure of the absolute spaces, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Fudge Factors and a new physics.
    ... First of all, absolutely, there is no absolute space as there is no absolute ... time neither, as the absolute goal of the relativity, is a simply that, ... still only a matter of a distance, which it plays a major role as which it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Leibniz vs Newton
    ... imagining that retrogrades are seen from Earth and absolute space by ... "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, ... always seen direct," Newton ... relativity and quantum mechanics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Leibniz vs Newton
    ... According to Newton: ... space has two natures, one absolute and one relative ... mechanics and relativity in a way the Newtonian path would have never ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast