Re: SpaceTime

On 06/01/2024 01:46 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 06/01/2024 01:37 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.06.2024 o 21:53, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 06/01/2024 10:48 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 31.05.2024 o 06:25, Tom Roberts pisze:

On 5/30/24 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]

>
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a
fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you
write.
>
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in the
real world.

>
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics, at a
fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything you
write.
Spacetime is a MODEL  of spatial-temporal relationships
gedanken/fabricated by some religious maniacs, like yourself.
>
>

>
Space-Time is a perfectly good idea of a

>
>
Measured its goodness? Or just sure it
must be perfectly good because you're
sooooooo best?
>
>
>
continuous manifold of

Euclidean space

>
>
A lie, of course, your idiot guru has rejected
Euclidean math as it didn't want to fit his
madness.
>

>
Einstein didn't, he entertained different coordinate settings
and that tensors connect them, then though he at some point
in his expressed opinion said silly things about simultaneity,
later his expressed opinion included a clock hypothesis and
a "the time", where he introduces the "spacial" for the "special"
contra the "spatial" with respect to "t".
>
If you mean Einstein that is, author of "Out of My Later Years",
which is to be read as his word on the matter overall.
>
Then, Space-Time is a great idea, and anything anybody got
wrong about it is their fault and their problem, not Space-Time's.
>
>
Einstein's theory he arrives at is a field theory about the
differential-systems of inertial-systems with regards to
coordinate settings which happens to result that SR is local,
while, the geodesy is whatever it is, and that while it is
an interpretation of the Lorentzian about SR and the L-principle
the constancy of c, it's not just any-old Lorentzian and there
is that according to Einstein SR is local, and that any-old
of those following him get or got it wrong is their own fault.
>
So, blame the mumblers, not the guru.
>

If you haven't read "Out of My Later Years",
or can't find a legitimate copy,
here in these podcasts I read what I think are
the interesting parts, with though a sort of
running narrative framing it in terms of a
modern and super-classical theory with
space-contraction and continuum mechanics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4eTUKaFE7U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3
There's not much mention of "curved" Space-Time at all,
only insofar as it's a metaphor about various coordinate
settings connected however they are and continuously,
with regards to space-contraction and the usual notion
that there's torsion or the highly non-linear in the
extremes of dynamics, where Einstein is a sort of
grandiose hedge, and in his later years he incorporated
all what he'd learned into a slimmer, less-attached,
sort of theory, while keeping both mass/energy equivalence
and an infinitesimal cosmological constant, though
letting out otherwise that SR is local and after GR.
It's much more about his differential-system,
of inertial-systems, continuity, and he does
mention causality, and then he also muses on
the stochastic interpretation, and whether there
will ever be that mathematics provides physics
the continuum mechanics, that arrive at particle physics.
That and a "clock hypothesis", ....