Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Specific Challenge..

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Bruce on July 25, 2002 20:24:21 UTC

My challege is that you are clueless wrt understanding relativity and the general purpose of models created to describe physical phenomena. Returning to Patrick Reaney's words

"Einstein's concept of space-time
is free creation of his mind. It does not need
to represent a THING ontologically, and thus
there is no circular reasoning. Einstein invented a
concept and then assigned properties to it that
either worked to fulfill the goals he wanted it
for, or they do not. Period. Your notion of circularity
is asinine. All you are really talking about is
self consistency: That is, Einstein's concept of a
"spacetime" is consistent with the principles
used to define it and with the experiments done to
test it. No better praise can be given any theory
in physics!!!! Roger S. Jones called it "stacking
the deck," meaning that we invent those concepts
(including models, even abstract ones) that fulfill
the end results that we already know about. That
is precisely why physics is not about true models,
but about the free invention of theories that work.

As far as anyone can tell using physics, there is
no such thing as "spacetime." Spacetime is just
a theoretical abstract model useful for building
a theory thereon.

In GR Einstein was out to build a relativized
version of a gravitational field that reduces to
Newton's in the appropriate limit. So, of
course, there is some "stacking of the deck"
in this effort. But it is logically valid and
effective. Thus the effective use of a model
of spacetime does not prove anything about
"real" spacetime, what ever that is. But it
does prove that the abstract model is useful.


When you say Einstein made an error wrt to the parameters of his model then you must show how it doesn't do what he intended it to do. This means provide an experimental result which conflicts with a prediction of the model. Any high school physics student should know this, so what is your problem?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins