If you guys are having fun with this then by all means continue, but in this particular case I believe Farsight technically has a point; when you say AlphaNumeric explained the use of language earlier, he posted Although it's not the point I think he was trying to make, what he has demonstrated is that if we treat spacetime as simply an object of 4-dimensional space then we are left with no parameter to describe evolution (aka motion), which is exactly what FS is saying. You cannot have motion through spacetime, you can only have motion in spacetime. I agree it's pedantic but it takes at least two people to argue, and you guys seem to want to continue the conversation. I'd also like to point out that it's difficult for me to accept your theme of "well, I know what they mean even if their language is fast-and-loose" when attacking the fast-and-loose use of terms (rather than the message) is an art form around here when dealing with unpopular posts.
Farsight's posts aren't unpopular because he has quibbles over terminology or has a different view of physics. Farsight's posts are unpopular because he writes stuff that is untrue and is intellectually dishonest about it. He quote-mines statements about physics without doing physics He ignores physics models and physics experiments that exceed his comphrension He rejects confronting experiment with physical assumptions He doesn't do any heavy lifting on his own proposals He moves the goal posts in debate (just check what the thread title is) He wraps himself in soi disant authority in physics without any justification or basis in reality. He abandons his claims and threads when shown to be wrong, but never admits being wrong or learning not to adavance those same claims at later dates
I understand you have a history with him and don't like some of his behaviors. I'd mention, though, that other criticisms of Farsight are less powerful when no one is willing to grant even the smallest concession when he clearly has a point.
And this is perfectly correct. In a sense. Specifically it's true in the sense that there is no external "super-time" parameter that is to spacetime what time was to just space. But there's also a sense in which there is evolution in spacetime. Namely, in the same sense we've always used the word. There's still a time in spacetime, and there's nothing wrong with pointing out that stuff can vary with time in spacetime and calling that "evolution". I'd argue this tells me more about how you think the terms "motion" and "through" should be used than how you actually view things. Personally, I'd agree with you that "motion through spacetime" sounds odd, but saying it's definitively wrong isn't something I think you can really justify. But nobody is being "fast and loose". You just agreed in the same breath that arguing over the difference between "motion through spacetime" and "motion in spacetime" is pedantic, and nobody even used that phrase here. But it's a recurring theme with Farsight that he picks on things like the vocabulary people use, and starts arguments about that, instead of the points people are actually trying to explain to him. The problem is, Farsight apparently doesn't think this is some pedantic detail. He posts the same rant in every relativity related thread he participates in, imagining everyone has the same misconception about space vs. spacetime regardless of what anyone actually says, and it's really tiresome. I'd rather see this confronted and sorted now than have to idiot proof every one of my future posts directed at him.
