What is "spacetime" really?

[Michael Mooney]

Apology accepted.

 

I'm glad. I really do appreciate both your sense of humor and your professional credentials.

 

There are no "natural born Truth tellers", not in our species.

However, there are many "natural born opinion tellers".

 

That's why I put in the parenthetical qualifier "truth (as I see it, of course) teller."

 

So, being polite is not high on your list?

I think it was Tacitus, historian of the Roman Empire, (?) who once said,

Speaking the Truth, without attention to etiquette, is an act of war.

 

Its just that I never attended gentlemen's finishing school, as I have always been something of a "wild man"... and have been a practitioner of "radical honesty" for many years. It's a philosophical choice, But I will modify it more if I stick around here... a big "if" at this point.

 

Why should we pay respect to your ideas, when you make it

so difficult to respect your behavior?

 

Well, "if" I continue here I'll just keep it impersonal.

 

All beliefs can be taken seriously. That is, it is possible for the human mind

to believe anything, however absurd the belief may be. (Voltaire, I think)

Whether or not the belief is itself valid or empirically verifiable is quite

another matter.

That is the point I was making to AnssiH... that all things we can imagine do not have equal "reality quotient."

 

I have no doubt at all that you believe that "nothingness" exists.

But I have substantial reasons for doubting its validity.

 

At this point, I think it's just semantics. I've always acknowledged that gravitational and electromagnet forces travel through space, and in that sense it is not empty. But that does not resolve the ontological question, "What is curved (etc.) as in 'curved space', or what expands and contracts as attributed to space? Also, obviousl at any and all loci where things/stuff is found, space is not empty... just in between and beyond such things/stuff.

 

Arguing against physics using philosophy as your weapon --

isn't that a bit like going to a gun fight with nothing but a switchblade?

 

Hmmmm. Is it not legitimate in a "philosophy of science" section to ask the ontological question "What is Spacetime, Really?" and expect advocates of "it's" supposed "properties" to address what it *is* that "has" such "properties" as curvature, dilation, etc.?

 

There are no "rabid dogs" on this thread. You default to insult and

baiting once again. If you cannot seem to get your ideas across,

repeatedly, consistently, then folks with a love of truth and reason

will naturally gravitate to you, demanding better explanations.

And if you cannot supply them, they will let you know.

It's the price you pay for muddy exposition.

 

As I just wrote in a PM to Modest, I thought it was obvious that I was equating "rabid" and "mad" as in the chosen use rname "maddog." And surely everyone can see that he is obsessed with his harsh criticism of me, hammering away with long strings of posts, "dogging" me, so to speak.

 

Oh, well... I am not obliged to answer.

Thanks. And I *was* sorry to see you abandon this thread. That translates as "I appreciated your presence here" tho we obviously have serious disagreements.

 

Michael

 

PS: Sorry about the bold format and lack of quote boxes. It just seems easier sometimes to insert in context.

[Michael Mooney]

Just a footnote of clarification, "to whom it may concern":

 

Qualification for Mensa is the top two percent of those who have taken IQ tests. That's two out of every 100.

 

My WAIS test score was 178.

On the rarity chart it is listed as follows:

99.9999900166%...... Rarity: Top 1 in 10,016,587

 

This is significantly above the "bar" required for Mensa membership. That reads "One out of ten million, sixteen thousand, five hundred eighty seven." No need to spell out the percentile ranking, I hope.

 

Please excuse this necessity to brag yet again, but I simply will not let "maddog" get away with misrepresenting my IQ. For still further clarification, Einstein"s published IQ was 160, so, immediately after quoting him (courtesy of Modest) and my "no brainer" comment about his "Objects are not in space", I justified my license to criticize him by mentioning that I have "18 IQ points on him." This context was somehow lost on maddog.

 

Michael

[Pyrotex]

I seriously doubt that maddog misconstrued the "context" or your meaning.

It's just that bragging about your IQ is generally considered poor form;

it is also irrelevant to any subject under discussion, unless you happen to

start a thread on "My IQ";

it also smacks of attempting to establish oneself as an ad hoc "authority",

without the necessity of proving credentials and past accomplishments.

Touchy stuff, IQ. It is generally accepted by many teachers that any

difference between two IQs of fewer than 20 may not be statistically

meaningful. Let it go, Michael. Your efforts would be better spent starting

a new thread, entitled something like "Ontology -- What's it Good For?",

and give the rest of us a chance to learn something useful from you,

without the implicit demand that we have to accept some conclusion.

 

Give it a shot.

[maddog]

As I just wrote in a PM to Modest, I thought it was obvious that I was equating "rabid" and "mad" as in the chosen use rname "maddog." And surely everyone can see that he is obsessed with his harsh criticism of me, hammering away with long strings of posts, "dogging" me, so to speak.

I guess you could construe my "mad-ness" from my Irish ancestry *also*.

Oh, well... I am not obliged to answer.

No you are not. However, two things I will note:

 

1. I am "dogging" you when you profess a statement(s) as valid and proceed without rigor

to conclude something from it, I will call you on it (as quick as I am able).

 

2. Your utter denigration of science, scientific method (I am wondering whether you include logic in that) does get my ire ruffled. Did I say I was Irish...

 

You don't even have to respond to this post either. :)

 

maddog

[maddog]

There are no "natural born Truth tellers", not in our species.

However, there are many "natural born opinion tellers".

 

So, being polite is not high on your list?

I think it was Tacitus, historian of the Roman Empire, (?) who once said,

Speaking the Truth, without attention to etiquette, is an act of war.

 

Why should we pay respect to your ideas, when you make it

so difficult to respect your behavior?

Touche! One to the Gipper!

 

Arguing against physics using philosophy as your weapon --

isn't that a bit like going to a gun fight with nothing but a switchblade?

I like that allegory, though I think in Michael's case he is holding the blade end... :)

 

There are no "rabid dogs" on this thread. You default to insult and

baiting once again. If you cannot seem to get your ideas across,

repeatedly, consistently, then folks with a love of truth and reason

will naturally gravitate to you, demanding better explanations.

And if you cannot supply them, they will let you know.

It's the price you pay for muddy exposition.

Yes, I will... I even consider it my civic duty... ;-)

 

maddog

[maddog]

Qualification for Mensa is the top two percent of those who have taken IQ tests. That's two out of every 100.

 

My WAIS test score was 178.

On the rarity chart it is listed as follows:

 

This is significantly above the "bar" required for Mensa membership. That reads "One out of ten million, sixteen thousand, five hundred eighty seven." No need to spell out the percentile ranking, I hope.

 

Please excuse this necessity to brag yet again, but I simply will not let "maddog" get away with misrepresenting my IQ. For still further clarification, Einstein"s published IQ was 160, so, immediately after quoting him (courtesy of Modest) and my "no brainer" comment about his "Objects are not in space", I justified my license to criticize him by mentioning that I have "18 IQ points on him." This context was somehow lost on maddog.

I had thought Einstein's IQ was a bit lower (in 130's). Knowing from some of my College Mensa friends that the Mensa bar was 154. I wouldn't think though you would

need credentials such Mensa membership to criticize Einstein. Just doing so would have

to do so in a "rigorous" manner. Something which <most> of you posts have lacked in

this thread. It is to that lack of rigor that I object to (and only that). I follow (at least most

of the time -- just do not agree with where you are going).

 

However, I did some digging on Einstein's IQ: and guess what I found.

 

What was Albert Einstein's I.Q? What is a high I.Q or Low I.Q? - Yahoo! Answers

What was Einstein's IQ level? - Yahoo! Answers

 

These were two random link off of a google search of "Einstein's IQ".

 

One says Einstein never actually took an IQ test (Standford-Benet or any other kind).

The other pulled up a "guesstimate" of 160 (your figure). However when I read the

rest of that comment it was giving a range of Einstein's IQ to between 160-200. Even

considering a balanced Gaussian distribution would put that at 180 with StdDev (+/- 7).

So that would put Einstein on par with your [Michael]'s caliber (or just above).

 

I acknowledge that figure was only a guesstimate, so I think that Michael can be safe

as no one really knows what was Einstein's IQ. To me though I guess it must have been

up there as his mastery of Tensors in GR demonstrates [i do find those matrices to be

a bear, and I truly hate "Roof" & "Cellar" index notation. *yechh!*]

 

maddog

[Moontanman]

Oh so now this has degenerated into a "Mines bigger than yours" argument?

[Michael Mooney]

I seriously doubt that maddog misconstrued the "context" or your meaning.

 

Actually he did. See below.

 

It's just that bragging about your IQ is generally considered poor form;

it is also irrelevant to any subject under discussion, unless you happen to

start a thread on "My IQ";

 

So I should let maddog trash me and just roll over and play dead?

 

it also smacks of attempting to establish oneself as an ad hoc "authority",

without the necessity of proving credentials and past accomplishments.

Touchy stuff, IQ. It is generally accepted by many teachers that any

difference between two IQs of fewer than 20 may not be statistically

meaningful. Let it go, Michael. Your efforts would be better spent starting

a new thread, entitled something like "Ontology -- What's it Good For?",

and give the rest of us a chance to learn something useful from you,

without the implicit demand that we have to accept some conclusion.

 

Give it a shot.

It was simply about how it is that I dare to criticize the most famous genius of all time.

 

Here is the Einstein quote and my "18 IQ points on him" reference (conclusion of my post 561), then maddog's misrepresentation, which I cleared up above:

 

Einstein:

Quote:

"People before me believed that if all the matter in the universe were removed, only space and time would exist. My theory [general relativity] proves that space and time would disappear along with matter."

Me:

In fact space is (has always been and always will be) nothingness... the emptiness between (and within) "things." And time is the "when" of it all. It all"takes time to happen," so then time is reified as some "stuff" that "dilates", etc. (Bogus!)

 

(It is really unbecoming to brag, but i do have 18 IQ points on him.)

 

Maddog (conclusion of post #584):

I was wondering if your were refering to him. No, it was not Obvious at all. Quite

Obfuscating. Of course that is your manipulative nature. I do see context when fully

made. Your meaning often dances around and rarely drives anywhere.

Let's see, so that puts your IQ just short of Mensa material, I bet you hate that...

 

The context and reference to Einstein was crystal clear, yet maddog "was wondering" to whom I was referring... and still not clear several posts later.

So, Pyrotex, do you think I should just lie down and let maddog walk all over me, or is it legitimate to clarify as I did above? (This is a rhetorical question.)

 

To be fair and absolutely clear, my reference to Einstein's "no brainer" (that objects do not exist in space) was in a previous post, as follows:

 

From my post 556, p.56:

Einstein(as quoted by Jedaisoul):

Quote:

"I wish to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning."

Amen to first sentence!

What do you suppose he means by "Physical objects are not in space"?

We know the man was a genius (so am I, according to my IQ scores), but this is a "no brainer!"

 

So, now maybe we can get off the issue of "my IQ." I will as necessary clarify such misconceptions about me without starting a new thread dedicated to "my IQ."

 

Poor form, you say. Not really. Maybe maddog's "dogging" me obsessively could be considered poor form. I guess its just about who is judging.

 

Finally, I wonder about this ragging on Euclid's 5th postulate. I just said that parallel lines do not converge. In fact, by definition, they don't. What is this specific obsession about?

(Yes, I can use the word "obsession" cuz I'm a credentialed psychologist.) Was "ragging" forbidden? I'm not sure. If so I tender my apology ahead of being "cited" yet again for it.

 

Michael

[modest]

Alright :)

 

If anyone wants to keep this thread open they should find the topic right quick, because we all know what happens to threads which go on and on with off-topic nonsense...

 

They are closed... fair warning.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Alright :)

 

If anyone wants to keep this thread open they should find the topic right quick, because we all know what happens to threads which go on and on with off-topic nonsense...

 

They are closed... fair warning.

 

~modest

 

Well... I was about to give it up anyway for lack of response to the ontological title question pending here for the last 60 pages.... most recently restated... over and over... without direct reply:

 

"What is curved (etc.) as in 'curved space', or what expands and contracts as attributed to space?

 

Is it not legitimate in a "philosophy of science" section to ask the ontological question "What is Spacetime, Really?" and expect advocates of "it's" supposed "properties" to address what it *is* that "has" such "properties" as curvature, dilation, etc.?[/quote

 

Pyrotex thinks this is a "rumble"... scientists with guns vs philosophers with switchblades. If it were not such a funny image it would be a pathetic caricature. Well it is both.

 

Well, this forum is the sorriest excuse for an intelligent answer to the thread title question one can even imagine. Such a "rude" comment will surely get me banned anyway, and by now I don't give a flying euphemism about appeasing the gentlemanly gentry here with their "be nice" rule as higher priority than "be honest."

 

Last call. Anybody know what the "ontology" of "spacetime" even means?

Guess not.

Goodbye.

Michael

[Erasmus00]

Finally, I wonder about this ragging on Euclid's 5th postulate. I just said that parallel lines do not converge. In fact, by definition, they don't. What is this specific obsession about?

 

The insistence is based on the fact that "parallel lines don't converge" is not IN FACT by definition. (Consider, for instance, skew lines, which aren't parallel, and yet no one would argue they don't intersect).

 

In mathematics, and in some extent, in physics- we have to be very careful about confusing what we know (i.e. what we can prove), with what appears to be true BASED ON INTUITION. All of our day to day intuition with parallel lines leads us to believe they don't intersect.

 

However, for mathematicians and physicists- intuition is a good starting place, but not wholly reliable (for a long time, people felt heavier objects fell faster than light ones based on intuition. This is not true). It turns out, when you formalize geometry, the parallel line postulate isn't necessary and you can prove different things depending on whether you choose such a postulate.

 

Now, since no triangle large scale triangle we can draw will actually have 180 degrees (though the difference is very slight), it seems that Euclid's parallel line postulate doesn't hold. Since, once more, you will deny this vehemently, this is the last I will say on this issue.

[watcher]

Last call. Anybody know what the "ontology" of "spacetime" even means?

 

No-thing-ness is that which lies between all "things'... energy systems... on all levels... subatomic, between atoms, between molecules... etc. to between all "objects" on macroscopic scale. Beyond the "whole cosmos" (as I have "seen" it is infinite space... which probably "contains" infinitely more cosmi.... as far as the omnipresent "I" can see. But that must remain speculative.

 

if nothingness is the ontology of spacetime, what is the ontology of "things", "energy systems or matter in general? would you care to share your view?

[maddog]

It was simply about how it is that I dare to criticize the most famous genius of all time.

Be my guest, criticize away. Just do so rigorously.

The context and reference to Einstein was crystal clear, yet maddog "was wondering" to whom I was referring... and still not clear several posts later.

In my form of thinkin' if you wish to Boast/(or not) as a comparison to someone/something.

Then you name that one/thing. I don't think I am so formal. This is the "best" example

(though not only) of Michael's Obfuscating remarks.

So, now maybe we can get off the issue of "my IQ." I will as necessary clarify such misconceptions about me without starting a new thread dedicated to "my IQ."

You started it.

Poor form, you say. Not really. Maybe maddog's "dogging" me obsessively could be considered poor form. I guess its just about who is judging.

You can judge all you like.

Finally, I wonder about this ragging on Euclid's 5th postulate. I just said that parallel lines do not converge. In fact, by definition, they don't. What is this specific obsession about?

It is not an obsession (unless you consider a commitment to accuracy an obsession).

When you demonstrated (repreatedly) disdain for any such subject, say as Differential

Geometry as being viable -- ability to "converge parallel lines" when viewing one space

from anothers coordinate system, I will state that you are stuck there. That would be

why you can't quite wrap your head around "spacetime". Period.

Which then begs the question why even pose the "challenge" as you have done so repeatedly ?

(Yes, I can use the word "obsession" cuz I'm a credentialed psychologist.) Was "ragging" forbidden? I'm not sure. If so I tender my apology ahead of being "cited" yet again for it.

This explains why you IQ is SO Important to you. With the behavior you have demonstrated at Hypography, I would expect you to treat other people in public this way as well. This gets me to wonder -- why would anybody want to be a patient of yours ? Or are you just a Research Psychologist ? And how come you didn't proceed on to become a Psychiatrist ? With an IQ of 178, I can't see what would be stopping you.

 

maddog

[maddog]

Alright :confused:

 

If anyone wants to keep this thread open they should find the topic right quick, because we all know what happens to threads which go on and on with off-topic nonsense...

I think this thread has been beaten to death enough. Fence it off, Petrify this thread to posterity as a futile, fetal attempt to Ontologicalify Spacetime ! :)

 

maddog

[Pyrotex]

Sadly, I must agree.

Once a thread degenerates to the stage of: "he said, and then I said, but he said it first, and then I said..." it's pretty much composte.

It's too bad Michael was so sensitive to disagreement. I thought he had potential. But a "credentialed psychologist"? With his self-esteem issues? And his paranoia? :confused:

 

Werner Erhard once said: In life, "being right" is the booby prize.

 

Unless someone objects in the next few hours, I will make the pilgrimage to the Hall of the Mountain King, and there beseech the Titans to terminate this thread. Doo da -- doo da. :)

[maddog]

if nothingness is the ontology of spacetime, what is the ontology of "things", "energy systems or matter in general? would you care to share your view?

I was for this reason, I posed "what is the Ontology of Thought ?" I wanted a real world

example where you can describe the underlying Metaphysics "is-ness" of something

where the existence has no "Physical-World" evidence.

 

maddog

[maddog]

Sadly, I must agree.

Once a thread degenerates to the stage of: "he said, and then I said, but he said it first, and then I said..." it's pretty much composte.

It's too bad Michael was so sensitive to disagreement. I thought he had potential. But a "credentialed psychologist"? With his self-esteem issues? And his paranoia? :confused:

 

Werner Erhard once said: In life, "being right" is the booby prize.

Unless someone objects in the next few hours, I will make the pilgrimage to the Hall of the Mountain King, and there beseech the Titans to terminate this thread. Doo da -- doo da. :)

I was wanting to say that myself. I was about to call Michael "right", leave it that without

explaining myself.

 

You have to go all to the Mountain King to Pertify this thread. No wonder it takes so long.... :hihi:

 

maddog