So this is your idea of a specific challenge!
Bruce: 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
Perhaps if you could be a little more precise in pointing out the clue or clues which I have missed.
I don't quite follow where Reaney's words apply here at all.
"Einstein's concept of space-time
is free creation of his mind."
???Yes, most ideas are free creations of someones mind. That does not imply they have to be correct!
"It does not need to represent a THING ontologically, and thus
there is no circular reasoning."
???Circular reasoning must involve representation of a THING??? I don't quite follow the reasoning in that!
"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.
???So, exactly how is that a challenge to my work? Are you saying Einstein could not possibly have made a mistake?
Your notion of circularity is asinine.
???Now that seems to be a rather useless statement. You have yet to give the reference to exactly what comment on circularity you are refering to. I never said Einstein was wrong because his argument was circular!
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, I am afraid that is not at all what I am talking about. I think you have totally missed the point.
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.
??? Could you please explain what that has to do with my presentation?
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.
??? So? Again, how does that comment bear on what I have said?
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.
??? I don't think anything Patrick has said bears in any way on what I have said.
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.
??? How about Bell's problem?? Or are you saying that there is no conflict between Quantum theory and Relativity?
Any high school physics student should know this, so what is your problem?
??? My problem seems to be finding a specific challenge in your post! All I find are strong indications that you don't have the slightest idea what I am talking about.