Mainstream GR versus Farsight, mote in their eye or beam in his?

[Farsight]

From the paragraph previous to the one you quoted:

There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all.

If you cannot see that he is referring to the GR aether as the field of "potentials" i.e. the metric tensor field, then I am done here.

Read the sentence again. He said space, three times. Those metrical qualities of space are _what you measure_, typically using light moving through macroscopic space and through the space within an optical clock. See this 1929 essay where Einstein described a field as a state of space.

PS by edit:

namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter

I have no idea what E. means here - if he is truly identifying the EM field with matter and nothing else, if he is truly identifying space with the field of potentials and nothing else, he is off his head

I know what he was referring to. Forget about quarks and gluons and neutrinos for a minute. We use pair production to make matter out of electromagnetic waves. The electron has an electromagnetic field, and in atomic orbitals, electrons "exist as standing waves". Standing wave, standing field. Kick an electron out of an orbital and you can diffract it, because it still exists as a standing wave. It's an electromagnetic standing wave. That's what matter is.

 

[origin]

It's an electromagnetic standing wave. That's what matter is.

I do not think that is a very accurate definition; that definiton of matter would exclude mater that does not have a charge such as a neutron.

 

[QuarkHead]

Read the sentence again. He said space, three times.

Farsight, I have tried to explain this to you more than once - perhaps you will listen this time.

When a mathematician, or a mathematical physicist for that matter, uses the term "space" he is generally referring to a domain of discourse. Thus we have number spaces, vector spaces, topological spaces, and function spaces, phase spaces, configuration spaces, even solution spaces, probability spaces etc, etc....

These terms rarely, if ever, refer to "the black stuff between celestial bodies"

Moreover, the 4-manifold that Einstein/Minkowski invented for relativity has, at each point the coordinates $$ct,\,x,\,y,\,z$$ (say), each with the same dimensions of "space". And more-moreover, this 4-manifold is assumed to be a metric space.

Now you re-read Einstein. If "we are compelled to describe" this space by the 10 "functions" (they're not really functions, btw) $$g_{\mu\nu}$$, then this can only mean he is referring to a 4-manifold with a totally symmetric metric at each point - if it's a 3-space with a non-symmetric metric there would be 9 of these guys, if it's 3-space with a symmetric metric there would be 6.

You were rude enough to call my earlier version of this argument "hand-wavey". Please read again and try to comprehend this time around

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, I have tried to explain this to you more than once - perhaps you will listen this time...

I've read what you said, and I've read what Einstein said. I'm sorry Quarkhead, but Einstein said space, and he meant space. He meant the-black-stuff-between-the-stars space. He didn't mean some mathematical space. Now it's clear we're not getting anywhere with this, so: end of discussion.

I do not think that is a very accurate definition; that definiton of matter would exclude mater that does not have a charge such as a neutron.

See Wikipedia. The neutron does have charge, but it has zero net charge.

 

[origin]

See Wikipedia. The neutron does have charge, but it has zero net charge.

I see it has a charge but does not have a charge, very nice. So if there is no net charge how can it produce an 'elecromatic standing wave'?

None of that matters anyway. What did Einstein say matter was? Whatever he said is the bottom line. If he did not comment what matter is then we will never know and the point is moot, right?

 

[QuarkHead]

Now it's clear we're not getting anywhere with this, so: end of discussion.

Great!. Look Farsight, I don't give a flying f*** what you think the field equations of gravitation describe, or how you yourself interpret Einstein's lamentable attempts at their popularization.

But there is one thing I do care about. For better or worse, it seems that there are people who visit sites like this in an an attempt to actually learn something. The fact that I personally think this is folly is beside the point - it seems to be a fact.

And that being the case, I would send out a warning to all.........

Farsight, for all his tone of authority and wide reading of popularizations, does NOT understand the General Theory of Relativity.

Now I am done.

 

[Layman]

That isn't the whole truth. Einstein described space as the aether of general relativity, see this dating from 1920.

Okay, I will correct my statement. The idea of the wavelike properties of light coming from a rippling of an aether was abandoned by reputable physicist after the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but it is still maintained by cranks on the internet, like farsight.

They now call it spacetime, because of all the preconceptions they had about aether at the time. They thought, if space was the medium light traveled through, then the speed of light would vary as objects moved through it differently. It turns out that relativity describes exactly what is needed to prevent that from occurring. Then Einsteins idea about aether was not the same as other people at the time. Basically, he was just saying that there was some sort of fabric of spacetime, which did not obey the principals given to the idea of an aether. That is why it lost the name aether, and they just call it spacetime now.

I am guessing you mention the date, because someone has probably explained this to you before. Einstein wasn't involved or known to be completely aware of other work or ideas being made about aether at the time. He supposedly wasn't aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment either, when he developed the theory. They had to do away with the name, because everyone was wrong about everything concerning aether. I guess dropping the "a" in front of it wasn't enough for them either.

Your source can be completely accurate. I have read something like that from Einstein before, but it is just that you are misrepresenting it. You just have not done the research to discover the whole story behind it. Almost every book designed for laymen include this story. I have read about 50-60 of them covering this topic. They are all in consensus or agreement on it.

 

[expletives deleted]

Farsight:

and

Quarkhead:


I 've been reading your mutual exchanges and have noticed something which I hope may be of help once pointed out. Namely, the discussion seems to be about two entirely different things. Let me illustrate my comment:

Imaging an indoor swimming pool with lights embedded in the submerged walls and bottom surfaces.

Now along comes a mathematician-physicist (let's say, Quarkhead) with eyes aimed at the white-painted ceiling; where he sees the dappled light patterns twinkling on the "projection screen" that ceiling effectively acts as. He immediately sets about measuring and calculating all sorts of spatial and temporal parameters and relativities in an abstract analytical way, and is able to model the observed phenomenon and can describe and predict its general behavior and patterns etc. I'll call that mathematical modeling and analysis system a "digital theory".

Then along comes an experimentalist-physicist (let's say, Farsight) with eyes facing downwards at the pool; where he notices a body of rippling water and several sources of light playing through that rippling water. He immediately sets about measuring and testing the physical parameters like topology and density and motions of those things to discover what they are made of and the consequences of their physical behavior (one such consequence of that behavior being the dappled light patterns "projected" on the ceiling "screen" as seen, described and modeled by the mathematician-physicist earlier). I'll call this different approach an "analogue theory".

Can you see what I am trying to point out? It seems that one is speaking in terms of the mathematical modeling of the phenomenon (ie: the ceiling light patterns observed). While the other is speaking of the physical explanation of the nature and consequences of what "produces" the observed and described and modeled phenomenon (ie: the water material and its motions plus the light sources and their processes).

They are to my mind two different "part perspectives" as to what's going on within the "whole" indoor pool "system". And two totally different approaches: one approach attempting to describe and model only the "images"; the other approach to study and explain what is it and why that actually gives rise to those images.


That's why it would be less confusing to me if the discussion between you two was on one or other "perspective" at a time; instead of crossing between both "perspectives" between and across one exchange to the next.

Having said all that, if I have incorrectly characterized what is going on between you two, then I apologize in advance. Either way though, I would appreciate the discussion more if both parties made absolutely clear which of the two "perspectives" is being discussed in a particular exchange: is it the mathematical modeling and descriptions; or is it the physical nature and explanations of what actual things gives rise to the mathematically modeled and described phenomena.

It has been interesting and instructive to read your discussion even if it sometimes confuses me as to what is being discussed in any particular exchange. Thanks to you both for some very deep thinking and commentary on Einstein's and subsequent theory and its understandings from different perspectives.

 

[rpenner]

Then along comes an experimentalist-physicist (let's say, Farsight) with eyes facing downwards at the pool; where he notices a body of rippling water and several sources of light playing through that rippling water. He immediately sets about measuring and testing the physical parameters like topology and density and motions of those things to discover what they are made of and the consequences of their physical behavior (one such consequence of that behavior being the dappled light patterns "projected" on the ceiling "screen" as seen, described and modeled by the mathematician-physicist earlier). I'll call this different approach an "analogue theory".

That is not the behavior Farsight has demonstrated.

I think perhaps your analogy is poor in that all sorts of physicists have to model the same reality, so they have to speak the same language, so definitions matter. A conversation where the two sides both claim to understand the terms in use but use privately different definitions is a conversation where the parties will talk past each other to no good end.

 

[rpenner]

I do not think that is a very accurate definition; that definiton of matter would exclude mater that does not have a charge such as a neutron.

Actually, it would leave behind all sorts of phenomena we count as matter, including electrons, protons and neutrons, all of which have centers of electric charge, while electromagnetic fields have no centers of charge.

Other problems involve electroweak phenomena, Pauli exclusion principle, conservation of angular momentum, color charge, electoweak charge and reconciling all of this with a single unified theory of electromagnetism.

 

[expletives deleted]

rpenner:

That is not the behavior Farsight has demonstrated.

I was going on the basis of what I understood was issuing from both Farsight and Quarkhead. Farsight spoke of Einstein's "space" characterizations; Quarkhead spoke of mathematical terms which he said were 'mathematical spaces', not the physical space alluded to in Farsight's Einstein quotes.

If I still am mistaken in my observation and characterization of their discussion perspectives and behavior, can you please elaborate on your above comment so that I can identify exactly where and how I am mistaken, rpenner. Thanks.

Edit: I now address your own edit:

I think perhaps your analogy is poor in that all sorts of physicists have to model the same reality, so they have to speak the same language, so definitions matter. A conversation where the two sides both claim to understand the terms in use but use privately different definitions is a conversation where the parties will talk past each other to no good end.

That is precisely what my point was. I was being confused by their switching between their perspectives. I explained what those perspectives were. I even gave them names to distinguish between them. The whole point was that such discussions which switch like that only confuse me. I want them both to be on the same page, irrespective of which perspective is being discussed. If they keep switching, then they are not doing what you say you expect of "all sorts of physicists". So I agree with you. They should try harder to clarify between them which perspective they are arguing from/about in a particular exchange, and then stick to that basis; and if switching, then clearly signal and explain the switching and proceed on that basis. It would help them a lot; and me too. Thanks.

 

[expletives deleted]

rpenner:

Perhaps I should have posted the above to the other thread; titled:

"Mainstream GR versus Farsight, mote in their eye or beam in his?"


Can you please use your moderator access to move my above posts and your relevant response to that thread? Sorry for any inconvenience. Thanks.

 

[Farsight]

...I 've been reading your mutual exchanges and have noticed something which I hope may be of help once pointed out. Namely, the discussion seems to be about two entirely different things. Let me illustrate my comment... ...Having said all that, if I have incorrectly characterized what is going on between you two, then I apologize in advance. Either way though, I would appreciate the discussion more if both parties made absolutely clear which of the two "perspectives" is being discussed in a particular exchange: is it the mathematical modeling and descriptions; or is it the physical nature and explanations of what actual things gives rise to the mathematically modeled and described phenomena. It has been interesting and instructive to read your discussion even if it sometimes confuses me as to what is being discussed in any particular exchange. Thanks to you both for some very deep thinking and commentary on Einstein's and subsequent theory and its understandings from different perspectives.

Good stuff, expletives-deleted. I'm afraid the situation isn't isn't just a matter of two different interpretations. It's a matter of people like Quarkhead and rpenner flatly dismissing what Einstein said.

 

[krash661]

Good stuff, expletives-deleted. I'm afraid the situation isn't isn't just a matter of two different interpretations. It's a matter of people like Quarkhead and rpenner flatly dismissing what Einstein said.

except you are the one endlessly using the word " interpretations/interpretation ", correct?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I forget the point of this thread.

 

[Confused2]

Ok Farsight, so you say you don't have a problem with Special Relativity. Let's try a simple example. If you really need a diagram I'll draw one for you.

A railway carriage is travelling through a station at velocity v. In the carriage Alice fires a pulse of light vertically from point A to point B where B is y metres above A. The time t will be y/c because that is the definition of 'the speed of light(c)' in the carriage frame.
Now, seen from the station, the carriage advances a distance x (where x=vT) while the pulse is travelling between A and B. Can we say how far the pulse has travelled (z) in the platform frame? I'd suggest Pythagoras will help here. Obviously the time of flight (T) will be the distance (z) divided by the speed of light (c).
So x=ct,y=vT and z (=cT) we have yet to find.

By Pythagoras' Theorum...
$$
z^{2}=x^{2}+y^{2}
\\or\\
c^{2}T^{2}=v^{2}T^{2}+c^{2}t^{2}
$$

In the next thrilling instalment I'll find the relationship between t (in the carriage) and T on the platform.
Hopefully we'll see that we are only as one with the Big E if the speed of light is the same in both frames.

 

[Confused2]

$$
c^{2}T^{2}=v^{2}T^{2}+c^{2}t^{2}
\\shuffle\\
c^{2}t^{2}= c^{2}T^{2}-v^{2}T^{2}\\
extract ~T^{2}\\
c^{2}t^{2}= T^{2}(c^{2}-v^{2})\\
divide~by~c^{2}\\
t^{2}= T^{2}(1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}})\\
or\\
t=T\sqrt{ 1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}} }$$

 

[Confused2]

So, hopefully, we did what the Big E. did and got the same answer by assuming the speed of light is the same in both frames.
Ok Farsight, what are you doing?

 

[sweetpea]

I forget the point of this thread.

I think the point of the site is to make money for the owners, if what makes money means lots of hits, then cranks and their threads are a godsend.
Oops! Don't mean to imply rpenner's got that in mind...rpenner's too good for this site, hope he keeps his cool.

 

[Farsight]

So, hopefully, we did what the Big E. did and got the same answer by assuming the speed of light is the same in both frames. Ok Farsight, what are you doing?

Paying attention to the fact that a frame is an abstract thing, and the wave nature of matter is not. See The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close, who explains why when you're made of waves, and you calibrate your rods and clocks using the motion of waves, you always measure wave speed to be the same.