Chasing the black holes of the ocean

James,

"I also continue to maintain that predictions result from patterns in empirical evidence."

A primary example being epicycles. The same philosophical assumption is made with spacetime, of the pattern as agent. Mathematically all Copernicus did was to make the motion of the earth one of the cycles and everything fell into place and there was no need for the physical cosmic gear wheels to power it. It was the cultural issues that were the hang up. Similarly Tom is not going to consider the math is just the map and not the territory, not because he can prove it to be, but because the cultural considerations cannot accept it.

And Tom, before you argue that, explain the difference between "space" and "vacuum," since according to theory, one expands and the other is stable.

Logic must account for anomalies. With belief, they are simply a test of one's faith.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Einstein's SR postulates are succinct, specific, were very carefully considered and crafted, and stand above all explanatory descriptions. It's wrong to think we can "suggest" what they are, they are set! Yet I'm often surprised how few really know them, and more importantly what they (in themselves) really mean beyond simply turning a posteriori problems into a priori axioms. I won't paste the original German version, but two close English versions are below, the first including the precurser;

1 (a). Examples of a similar kind, as well as the failed attempts to find a motion of the earth relative to the 'light medium', lead to the supposition, that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, on the contrary, for all systems of coordinates, for which the equations of mechanics are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are also valid, as has already been proven for the magnitudes of the first order.

1 (b). The laws according to which the states of physical systems change do not depend upon to which of two systems of coordinates, in uniform translatory motion relative to each other, this change of state is referred.

2 (a). [L]ight in empty space always propagates with a determinate velocity c irrespective of the state of motion of the emitting body.

2 (b). Every ray of light moves in the 'resting' system of coordinates with the determinate velocity c, irrespective of whether this ray of light is emitted from a resting or moving body. Such that; velocity = (path of light) / (interval of time)

or more commonly shortened to;

1. "The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference..." which is to say, the speed of any object is relative to the observer.

2. (a) "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c..." Or, as an exception to (1.) above, the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is a universal constant.

(b) "From a composition of two velocities which are less than c, there always results a velocity less than c," i.e. nothing can exceed the speed of light.

The postulates are well proven. But it is a serious error to confuse the efforts at rationalisation and logical explanation, which are NOT proven and which he always knew and said were incomplete, with the proven postulates he stood by. They are sacrosanct. The 'explanations' to date are not. Do you seriously suggest they are?

My point ref 1952 and Minkowski stands. You clearly don't know that last paper. It wasn't until then that he specifically expressed the solution as "small space 's' in motion within larger space 'S'." etc. and particularly of; "not one 'space' but infinitely many 'spaces' in motion relatively" Almost verbatim with Minkowski's 1908 conception, just re-translating one key word; Minkowski's; "endlessly..."

Peter

"The postulates are well proven."

Peter, postulates (axioms) are irreducible assumptions. They are *never* proven. For a theory that is "contained entirely within the postulates," removal of any postulate will destroy the theory. Again, consider Euclidean geometry whose theory of space rests on five postulates -- the replacement of the fifth postulate (parallel lines never meet) with those of non-Euclidean geometry creates two new theories that are incompatible not only with Euclidean geometry, but with each other.

Best,

Tom

" ... explain the difference between 'space' and 'vacuum,' since according to theory, one expands and the other is stable."

Which does what?

"I do have an argument based upon my own work, that begins with fixing f=ma, that the origin is far older than the big bang currently predicts."

That's a really great conjecture, James. Showing even the plausibility of such an idea would open new paths in physics.

But this belief holds you back:

"I also continue to maintain that predictions result from patterns in empirical evidence."

Patterns in empirical evidence are always arbitrarily chosen. To give them objective meaning, we construct a theory that incorporates those observations. If the theory is stronger than any other explanation for the phenomena, then it contains new predictions that can be experimentally tested, even if indirectly.

Best,

Tom

James, I don't know why you linked that Wikipedia page. It clearly says up front: "The historical importance of this series of experiments performed by various physicists between 1901 and 1915 is due to the results being used to test the predictions of special relativity."

Which is what I said.

Best,

Tom

John,

"Shadows are patterns as well. You are convinced spacetime is not another shadow on the wall of the cave, yet it is one more pattern illuminated by the light."

What would the shadow of spacetime look like? -- that's the question. If spacetime is physically real, as Einstein's theory avers, we can discern the properties of spacetime by the shadows it casts. It's not the patterns in the shadows that are physically real.

"'Okay then -- what would the Penzias-Wilson discovery mean if there were no big bang theory of cosmology?'

"Possibly a solution to Olber's paradox; The light of ever more distant sources, redshifted off the visible spectrum. As you say, 'A theory could be just a good guess.'"

How does Olber's paradox explain background radiation?

"'I consider it a scientific certainty that spacetime is physically real and that the laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe. Just like Minkowski and Einstein.'

"Fortunately for Einstein and Minkowski that they didn't live to see the Multiverse."

Einstein and Minkowski should have been delighted with the many worlds hypothesis. It forbids collapse of the wavefunction, and supports continuous spacetime, taking the weirdness out of quantum mechanical behavior. The unfortunate thing today is the dearth of physicists so fully trained in mathematical analysis and classical mechanics, as Minkowski and Einstein.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"For a theory.. "contained entirely within the postulates," removal of any postulate will destroy the theory." Good, and I note you don't refute my point about all the evidence supporting the postulates not necessarily also the proposed 'rationalisations' which are then not proven as only ones possible.

I knew some agreement must be possible, even when thinking so differently.

Thought patterns fascinate me. You'll recall I started off as a high flyer/pure mathematician but wasn't happy ignoring the problem of deriving math from logic, the little tricks used to by-pass that, and the fact there are more transcendental numbers that real ones.

...Ooops, wrong button. Cont; So I determined to get the different sides of my brain working better in unison, including training as an Architect which helped massively, encompassing true unity of art and science. I hope my essay may show that.

I've just now also realised, reading the below, that may be why I feel I seem to understand better how Einstein thought than most. Mostly from studying his life and work perhaps and nothing to do with 'genius' I'm sure, but different to most 'single hemisphere' thought none the less. The links between his two brain hemispheres were apparently exceptionally well developed. Of course Pentcho may see this as his weakness!

Weiwei Men, et al., "The corpus callosum of Albert Einstein's brain: another clue to his high intelligence?," Brain, 2013

When he finally spoke of SR as "entirely contained within the postulates" that was what he meant Tom. The 'theory' itself is not also all the unproven explanation, which I've now found includes just 'baggage' it carries.

Peter

" ... I note you don't refute my point about all the evidence supporting the postulates not necessarily also the proposed 'rationalisations' which are then not proven as only ones possible."

Peter, I wasn't trying to refute anything. I'm only following the prescription of scientific method to interpret evidence in theory. A rationalist and a realist doesn't allow that evidence speaks for itself; evidence only speaks through theory. Phenomena not explained by a theory (though not falsifying a theory) can be rationalized into anything one wishes; it's equivalent to a proposition that 1 = 0.

"I knew some agreement must be possible, even when thinking so differently."

Of course. I don't think there's any difference between your brain-mind, Einstein's and mine. The objective propositions that we project into a neutral space of possibilities are connected continuously by a wealth of human knowledge. As Einstein said, though, if we are to add to that wealth -- imagination is more important.

Best,

Tom

Peter,

Earlier in this thread, I liinked a page by John Stachel that included a quote from Einstein:

"A new idea comes suddenly and in a rather intuitive way. That means it is not reached by conscious logical conclusions. But, thinking it through afterwards, you can always discover the reasons which have led you unconsciously to your guess and you will find a logical way to justify it. Intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience."

So yes, Einstein also agrees with you about the backward process of logically rationalizing a result.

Einstein was always careful, though, to separate imagination and personal belief from rationally objective science.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Kaufmann performed his experiments in 1901 and 1902. They were not performed to test special relativity. The persons who edit the article may think like you but they can't move special relativity 1905 into the past even with wormholes!!!

"James, I don't know why you linked that Wikipedia page. It clearly says up front: "The historical importance of this series of experiments performed by various physicists between 1901 and 1915 is due to the results being used to test the predictions of special relativity."

Which is what I said."

You said nothing that refutes that there was experimental evidence for special relativity 'type' effects, not 'special relativity effects', before Einstein wrote his 1905 misinterpretation of the evidence.

James Putnam

James,

You should familiarize yourself with the history of special relativity. Before Einstein formalized it into a mathematically complete theory in 1905, there were plenty of partial results (Poincare, Lorentz, et al) that provided the theoretical framework.

"You said nothing that refutes that there was experimental evidence for special relativity 'type' effects, not 'special relativity effects', before Einstein wrote his 1905 misinterpretation of the evidence."

As I said, those results were obtained within a theoretical framework that is well documented. Einstein completed the search, he didn't "misinterpret" it.

Compare the Higgs/Englert theoretical completion of the standard model.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"Patterns in empirical evidence are always arbitrarily chosen. To give them objective meaning, we construct a theory that incorporates those observations. If the theory is stronger than any other explanation for the phenomena, then it contains new predictions that can be experimentally tested, even if indirectly."

They have to be tested indirectly because theory is an obstruction. Remove the arbitrariness, the invented meanings, the invented untestable properties, and you will have fixed f=ma. Then fix temperature and you will have fixed physics because the arbitrariness, the invented meanings, the untestable invented properties, will find their doorway into physics slammed shut.

Fixing f=ma leads to the conclusion that the universe is far older than the big bang theory predicts. This wasn't hard to show with theory out of the way.

James Putnam

Tom,

Don't pull this circle stuff on me:

"You should familiarize yourself with the history of special relativity. Before Einstein formalized it into a mathematically complete theory in 1905, there were plenty of partial results (Poincare, Lorentz, et al) that provided the theoretical framework."

I informed you about some history preceding Einstein's misinterpretation. You were starting your history with your credit to Einstein's magnificent lone insight. The predecessor's were experimenting and seeking verifiable solutions. The time they spent on testing for the ether was science. Einstein's invention of space and time as causes is today's untestable version of ether moved further away from falsifiability. Now we have to show that space and time do not bend? This is not science. This a chalkboard world.

James Putnam

"You were starting your history with your credit to Einstein's magnificent lone insight. The predecessor's were experimenting and seeking verifiable solutions. The time they spent on testing for the ether was science. Einstein's invention of space and time as causes is today's untestable version of ether moved further away from falsifiability. Now we have to show that space and time do not bend? This is not science. This a chalkboard world."

I'm sorry you're getting all upset about this, James -- however, my argument is neither circular, nor is it an argument. It is studied historical -- and scientific -- fact.

The existence -- or not -- of an ether does not lead to E = m. That *was* a "magnficent lone insight" unrelated to experimental tests of relativistic frameworks. E = m is also well tested and unfalsified, and has nothing to do with the bending of a light path in spacetime -- which is a prediction of general relativity.

Best,

Tom

"Fixing f=ma leads to the conclusion that the universe is far older than the big bang theory predicts. This wasn't hard to show with theory out of the way."

It's also not hard to show evolution with God out of the way. Would you consider that science?

In my last message to Tom, I made the statement "We're supposed to show that space and time don't bend?" I will clarify what I meant:

It isn't a matter of showing that space and time don't bend, or don't warp, or don't adjust their physical form as described by the Lorentz transforms. Empirical evidence is always in the form of patterns in changes of velocity of objects. So, the real meaning of what I meant is: We are supposed to show that space and time don't undergo changes of velocity?

In order to falsify space-time it would have to be shown that neither space nor time have changing velocities. That is the reason for my calling the theory of Special Relativity a chalkboard world. The same goes for General Relativity. There is no empirical evidence that Relativists can point to, to support their theoretical interpretations, that does not consist of patterns in changes of velocity of objects.

Relativists have adopted space and time as their fundamental objects. In their claims of supporting evidence, they never show evidence that either space or time have velocities changed or otherwise. In other words, they have no evidence supporting object natures for space or time.

Nothing in this message is to be interpreted as denying the existence of relativity type effects.

James Putnam

Neither God nor Not God are empirical evidence. What today's evolutionists have done is to put Not God in front of the empirical evidence. What is known is that there is both success and lack of success for designs of life that come into being, for unknown reasons, before the aftereffect selection process occurs. The rearrangement of DNA can accomplish nothing unless the meaning of its code, arranged or rearranged, is already established. Today's evolution theory has nothing to offer to account for the existence of meaning. What else is not shown is that the mechanical properties of theoretical physics can account for the birth of intelligent life. Ideology is more important today than is the purity of science.

Nothing in this message is to be interpreted as denying the evidence for the evolution of life. The meaning of the word evolution used here refers to the natural unknown evolutionary process and not the ideologically driven evolutionary theory of today.

James Putnam