Vesselin
Thanks for your responses of 19th October. I have been busy with my own site and other discussions, as you have no doubt been, and not had time before to consider your response. Some comments:
1. In the second part of your response you wrote "I do not know what you mean by "there is one common space that we all exist in (don't we ? )". However, I hope you do not base this statement on what we perceive, because what we believe we " perceive" as one common space (through the distances between objects) does not constitute even a space "
Let me explain my viewpoint (covered more fully but not completely in my essay). NB I fully accept relativity theories and their consequences for simultaneity, observable universes etc. - but in what follows I ignore it to keep my explanation simple.
Science is two sided. There is the experimental / observational side that consists of scientifically valid experimental data. I call this the Reasonable side. On the other side are the mathematical theories we construct logically to "explain" the data. This is the Rational side. Science is about continually improving our theories to explain our ever increasing experimental data; i.e. about effective correspondences between the Empirically Reasonable True Facts of Life as we experience it on one hand - and the logically correct True Statements that we use to explain them.
Both experimenters and theorists use much of the same terminology - but with differing meanings. Your comment that I quote uses the word "space" with two different meanings. I may have done the same thing. We all often do. We should not. It tends to produce this kind of confusion.
We all exist experimentally in one "physical space" that is totally connected. All experimental data is measured in that space and requires 3 space co-ordinates to specify it; i.e. physical space is 3 dimensional. We also record a "Now" time to fully specify the data. ALL scientifically correct empirical experimental data is specified as being in a universe with 3 space dimensions and one of time. We as humans have no other choice, scientifically.
When you above, and Minkowski etc., use the word "space" you are referring to a logical construct that is logically correct. You are not referring to physical space. Your science is one sided; incomplete. Theoretically I do not care what formalism you or Minkowski or anyone else prefers to use as (for you) the most effective explanation of the data. Some people use 4D continua; some use 6D, some use 0 D. some use 10D, 26D, etc., etc. (see my essay). I do not (here) dispute any of your claims as to being true = logically correct. You just leave the job unfinished - like many scientists.
For any preferred formalism its purpose is to explain - not eliminate - the world of scientific data. See my Weiberg Quote (QTF Vol1 pages xx-xxi)
2. I think you assert that a 4D Minkowski Space-time continuum is the only logically correct formalism. I do not accept that. We disagree. Our respective essays must suffice for now.
You rely a lot on Minkowski. Perhaps you could give me some references to the experiments he carried out and the scientific data he produced. Or (see my essay), perhaps Not. He was after all a mathematician; not a physicist. Sadly, for many physicists, especially Einstein, he is a god - of physics ?
Your response, as i read it, suggests you are making the three mistakes your essay condemns.