Daryl
Got a copy.
At the generic level, his comments on what comprises space are understood. Here is my paragraph in my essay (incidentally, all this Einstein material is not my essay):
"Space does not physically exist, physically existent phenomena do. The concept of space is prompted by the fact that physical existence involves relative shape and size, which can be conceptualised as the 'occupation' of 'spatial points' (ie spatial footprint). So by definition, an elementary particle (or at least the smallest, if the types differ) occupies one spatial point. Reference to any given space is a function of the physical phenomena being defined. The space between A and B constitutes that as a consequence of only defining A and B. In reality, either A and/or B could be part of something else, and there are other physical phenomena between A and B. 'Space' can be intrinsic or extrinsic, the former being the size and shape of something, while the latter relates to the differentiation between things".
Now this is essentially referring to space as in 'not-object' (the 'in between'). But this equally applies to the meaning of space as in 'not complex objects', ie the 'stuff' out there. That is, in simple language, there is always something. Sometimes that something occurs in 'composite' form, sometimes in 'dissasociated' form. But there is only something, not nothing
Now, in piece you have referred me to, the issue starts here:
"With the discovery of the relativity of simultaneity, space and time were merged în a
single continuum in a way similar to that in which the three dimensions of space had previously been merged into a single continuum. Physical space was thus extended to a four-dimensional pace which also included the dimension of time".
This is Poincare's concept and it is incorrect. There is no 'time' in any given physically existent state (reality), because of how reality must occur. It exists, and it alters. To do this there must ultimately be discreteness, an occurrence 'one at a time' in any given sequence (which could refer to the entirety of reality or one elementary part). Continuousness is the same for ever, no change. 'Time' relates to change and change is about difference between realities, not a feature of a reality. In other words, reality exists in a physically existent state as at any point in time (as in timing). A point in time being the fastest rate of change in reality. That is, timing based on that unit would differentiate every discrete state. See my post in my blog 24/7 06.42 (I was reading it this afternoon, and as always there are slight improvements to be made, but the points are there).
Another argument is as follows (this comes from my post on my blog 11/7 19.33):
3 The A & B example (copied from Poincaré) in Einstein section 1 1905, is not correct. The timing of existence is not the same if entities are in the "immediate proximity", and then different if they are not. All entities are at a different spatial location at any given point in time, some are just further apart than others. Different entities cannot be at the same spatial point at the same time. And timing is just a measuring system. So, select a particular point in time, and whatever existed then, did so, even if it is 10 trillion light years away. Each entity, except when it is in the "immediate" proximity" does not have its 'own time', and then there is a "common time".
4 Einstein: "We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" t(a) from A towards B, let it at the "B time" t(b) be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time"t'(a). In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t(b) - t(a) = t'(a) - t(b)".
5 The distance between A & B is the same, by definition, whether it is expressed as A-B or B-A, because it is a difference. It is incorrect to express this in terms of how long light (or anything else) takes to travel one way and THEN the other. The important word being "then". If light speed is constant, it is just the same as using a ruler, or any other measuring tool. The particular use of light speed is pointless. But the problem is that this single distance (a difference) is being expressed as a difference between two different timings (what is used, so long as it is constant, is irrelevant). The equation should be: t(b) - t(a) = t(a) - t(b), which is the same as, and as meaningless as, A-B=B-A. A constant (because there is only one), ie the distance, is being expressed in terms of variance between two different measurements. Timing has been reified into physical reality.
6 This mistake then becomes embodied in the expression of light speed in terms of timing and distance. Hence c = 2AB/(t'(a) -t(a)). The real question here being: what has light got to do with it? The answer being: nothing. The fact that it enables sight is irrelevant to what constitutes physical reality. Not that was why light was used, that happened because of the start point of the deliberations some 10 years earlier about light speed, earth movement and ether.
Paul
