Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[Farsight]

...I will start with a point about Farsight's "aether": We call it "your aether" because it is not whatever you imagine Einstein, Minkowski, Maxwell, Newton (which is actually a lie ), Robert B Laughlin and a few more people in arXiv spoke of. For a start, they are talking of different "aether"!

No they aren't. See my post to Perpetual Student above.

Farsight: (24 July 2014) Isaac Newton held that space is absolute and there is no luminiferous aether ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light#Sir_Isaac_Newton"]Corpuscular theory of light).[/URL]

Wrong. Go and read Opticks query 20 where Newton said this: "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?"

Farsight: (25 July 2014) Can you understand the stupidity of that arXiv search that returns no citations of Einstein's ether speech?

When you search arXiv there's loads of papers with Einstein-aether in the title. That isn't stupid. What's stupid is clinging to the popscience myth that Einstein did away with the aether.

Farsight: (25 July 2014) Can you understand that many of the results for that arXiv search are for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory"]Einstein aether theory?[/URL]

Now you really aren't making any sense.

Farsight: (25 July 2014) Einstein's aether is "space endowed with physical properties". This is a field as in a gravitational field.

Yes, space isn't nothing. And a field is a state of space. A wave is a dynamical state of space.

Farsight: (25 July 2014) Einstein never said that "space is not homogeneous".

Are you for real? Go and read what Einstein said: "Empty space in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic".

It was "empty space", i.e. in the real universe, matter and energy need not be homogeneous or isotropic thus the 10 equations in the EFE.

Go and read what Einstein said instead of making up something different. A gravitational field is a place where space is neither homogeneous nor isotropic.

This really should be in the other thread but since you have abandoned it: [URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10138579#post10138579"]Farsight: (24 July 2014) Have you been listening to the ideas of liquidspacetime for years?

No, I've spoken to him a few times over the last couple of years to try to correct him, but he won't listen. Which is a shame because he's got some of it right.

Actual questions:
Farsight: (29 July 2014) What is the scientific definition of space?
Farsight: (29 July 2014) What is the scientific definition of a field in physics? And the follow-on: How does this make What a field in physics really is by W.D.Clinger wrong?

Space is space, you can't define it in terms of anything else, because everything else is made of waves in it. There's a mathematical definition of a field referring to tensors which are essentially matrices, but the physics definition of a field is as Einstein said: a state of space. Don't listen to Clinger, his physics is poor, especially his relativity, he's a hyperskeptic naysayer, and he will not admit it when he gets something wrong. When it comes to relativity, I'm the expert round here. Listen to me. Everybody knows my name. I'm John Duffield. I have my growing reputation to think of. I have absolutely no reason to tell you anything that isn't true. And remember it's me who says this: do your own research.

 

[edd]

Space is space, you can't define it in terms of anything else, because everything else is made of waves in it. There's a mathematical definition of a field referring to tensors which are essentially matrices, but the physics definition of a field is as Einstein said: a state of space.

No it isn't. In physics, a field really is just setting up a value (be that a scalar, vector, or tensor value) across all of the space in consideration. Temperature in a room is a field - it's not a fundamental physical field sure, but it's still a field. I've no idea where you got the idea of a mathematical definition referring to tensors (which aren't 'essentially matrices', although in special cases they may be closely tied to the point that you'd probably get away with saying they're the same thing). It doesn't matter what Einstein said in one special case, and I think you're reading too much into it anyway. He's trying to point out that you can reasonably think of many of these fields as physically real even in areas of otherwise empty space. It doesn't mean that the field is some consequence of a distortion of space or anything like that (although obviously in one special case this may be true).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

There is absolutely no misunderstanding on my part. I've studied the physics. You haven't.

You have read about the physics without understanding its mathematics. That is not how one studies physics.

As your misunderstandings within this thread and others have demonstrated time and again, reading about physics is no substitute for studying physics.

That's why I can give references whilst all you can do is play the hyperskeptic naysayer who clings to popscience woo in the face of bona-fide physics. Here's Einstein's Leyden Address and a couple of quotes from it:

Because you have not studied physics, you are reduced to cherry-picking, treating your favorite quotations as holy proof-texts.

Even after cherry-picking your sacred proof-texts, you are reduced to cherry-picking the words within them. For example:

"Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty..."

...snip...

Why on Earth do you think Einstein or anybody else meant spacetime when they said space?

You don't have to be a physicist to realize this passage mentions "space-time" or "space and time" more often than it mentions "space" alone.

Had you actually studied relativity, instead of just reading about it without understanding its mathematics, you'd know the "ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn)" are the components of the fundamental metric tensor field, which is defined on spacetime, not space.

But you haven't actually studied relativity, so you don't know that:

Like Einstein said, we describe the state of space using the metric tensor.

The metric tensor describes the local geometry of spacetime, not just space. As I wrote in another thread where you had made that same erroneous claim:

Farsight, of course, has only read about general relativity; he has never studied it. That's why he's been quoting Einstein's Leiden address for years without ever understanding what Einstein meant by the "ten functions (the gravitation potentials g_μν)" mentioned within the very sentence Farsight was quoting.


The ten functions g_μν are the components of what Einstein called the fundamental tensor. The subscripts range over the four indices of spacetime. The tensor is symmetric, meaning g_μν = g_νμ, which is why there are only ten different functions instead of sixteen.

If Farsight were right about Einstein's ether referring to space rather than spacetime, then the subscripts would range over only the three spatial indices, implying at most nine functions. Einstein said "ten" because he's referring to spacetime.

Had you actually studied relativity, instead of getting lost at Einstein's equation (3), you'd have known that.

Even without understanding Einstein's mathematics, you could have understood that correction (posted less than a week ago). But you consistently ignore corrections, even when those corrections are as straightforward and easy to understand as this one. It's almost as though you'd rather boast of your expertise than understand physics:

Don't listen to Clinger, his physics is poor, especially his relativity, he's a hyperskeptic naysayer, and he will not admit it when he gets something wrong. When it comes to relativity, I'm the expert round here. Listen to me. Everybody knows my name. I'm John Duffield. I have my growing reputation to think of. I have absolutely no reason to tell you anything that isn't true.

But I approve of this:

And remember it's me who says this: do your own research.

Remember also: You can't study physics by ignoring its mathematics.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Einstein made his most important statements using the language of mathematics, not German or English.
Farsight, can you produce a mathematical equation attributable to Einstein wherein he demonstrates or speaks of the "ether" in terms of a vector or tensor involving only the three dimensions of space?
Of course, you cannot! You're simply dead wrong and your understanding of general relativity is too naïve to recognize that!

 

[Farsight]

No it isn't. In physics, a field really is just setting up a value (be that a scalar, vector, or tensor value) across all of the space in consideration. Temperature in a room is a field

Not in physics it isn't. We have electromagnetic fields, we have gravitational fields, we have quantum field theory. We don't have "temperature fields".

it's not a fundamental physical field sure, but it's still a field.

Don't talk wet. We don't have "height fields" or "pressure fields" or "wind speed fields" or "ocean salinity fields". Not unless your name is Humpty Dumpty, and something means what you choose it to mean.

I've no idea where you got the idea of a mathematical definition referring to tensors

Pay attention edd. Clinger referred to it here a few days back saying this: "In physics, a field is a mapping from some topological space to another space that typically consists of scalars (the real or complex numbers), vectors, or tensors. If that other space is the real or complex numbers, we say the field is a scalar field. If that other space is a vector space, we say the field is a vector field. If that other space is a tensor space, then we say the field is a tensor field".

(which aren't 'essentially matrices', although in special cases they may be closely tied to the point that you'd probably get away with saying they're the same thing).

Nitpick.

It doesn't matter what Einstein said in one special case, and I think you're reading too much into it anyway.

No I'm not. What do you think a gravitational field is? It's a region of space that has a particular state. We model it as curved spacetime, but make no mistake, if space didn't have that state, your pencil wouldn't fall down.

He's trying to point out that you can reasonably think of many of these fields as physically real even in areas of otherwise empty space. It doesn't mean that the field is some consequence of a distortion of space or anything like that (although obviously in one special case this may be true).

Of course it does. Your special case is curved spacetime, right? Well take a look at geomagnetic field and Geometry of Electromagnetic Systems. It's all in the geometry, edd.

Einstein made his most important statements using the language of mathematics, not German or English.

Er, no. Einstein made his most important statements in German which was translated into English. Only a hyperskeptic naysayer quack would dismiss what Einstein actually said and then hide behind mathematics, claiming Einstein meant the opposite of what he said. And ignore what Ned Wright said and what the Baez article said. You really do remind me of a Creationist who is impervious to all evidence and references.

Farsight, can you produce a mathematical equation attributable to Einstein wherein he demonstrates or speaks of the "ether" in terms of a vector or tensor involving only the three dimensions of space?
Of course, you cannot!

No, because Einstein gave the equations of motion. If you just use the three dimensions of space you have no motion. Duh.

You're simply dead wrong and your understanding of general relativity is too naïve to recognize that!

No, I'm dead right, and Einstein was dead right too. You however are convictional and determined to cling to your ignorance. You've got nothing to say other than to cast aspersions. There's no discussing physics with you. <snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0

 

[Farsight]

You have read about the physics without understanding its mathematics. That is not how one studies physics.

I understand the mathematics. You don't even understand the difference between space and spacetime.

Because you have not studied physics, you are reduced to cherry-picking, treating your favorite quotations as holy proof-texts...

Well that's one way to dismiss Einstein because you think you know better. Clinger, get this: you don't. And note this: Einstein's on my side. You're in the Einstein was wrong camp.

You don't have to be a physicist...

Had you actually studied relativity...

The metric tensor describes the local geometry of spacetime...

Had you actually studied relativity...

you could have understood that correction...

You can't study physics by ignoring its mathematics...

Oh whine whine whine. I don't ignore the mathematics. I understand the mathematics. You don't. Listen up Clinger, you absolutely do not understand relativity, because you still dismiss Einstein, and you still don't understand the difference between space and spacetime. There is no "local geometry of spacetime". Spacetime isn't what's around you. Space is around you. Space is what you move through. Spacetime is static. Get used to it. Now quit your carping and start talking physics.

If you dare. Because as you are to liquidspacetime, so am I to you.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Farsight
Space is space, you can't define it in terms of anything else, because everything else is made of waves in it. There's a mathematical definition of a field referring to tensors which are essentially matrices, but the physics definition of a field is as Einstein said: a state of space.

The above (in red) is quite revealing. Tensors are not essentially matrices! You really do need to study the actual physics of GR -- including the mathematics.

Originally Posted by Farsight
<..>
When it comes to relativity, I'm the expert round here. Listen to me. Everybody knows my name. I'm John Duffield. I have my growing reputation to think of. I have absolutely no reason to tell you anything that isn't true.

 

[edd]

Not in physics it isn't. We have electromagnetic fields, we have gravitational fields, we have quantum field theory. We don't have "temperature fields".

Don't talk wet. We don't have "height fields" or "pressure fields" or "wind speed fields" or "ocean salinity fields".

Unlike you I'm a qualified physicist. I just pulled off my shelf one of my first year undergraduate texts, turned to the page where fields are first discussed, and temperature and water velocity are both amongst the first examples of fields given, along with electric and gravitational fields.

Pay attention edd. Clinger referred to it here a few days back saying this: "In physics, a field is a mapping from some topological space to another space that typically consists of scalars (the real or complex numbers), vectors, or tensors. If that other space is the real or complex numbers, we say the field is a scalar field. If that other space is a vector space, we say the field is a vector field. If that other space is a tensor space, then we say the field is a tensor field".

Thereby demonstrating exactly my point - it's not related specifically to tensors.

Only a hyperskeptic naysayer quack would dismiss what Einstein actually said and then hide behind mathematics, claiming Einstein meant the opposite of what he said.

The mathematics is the precise and unambiguous statement of the physical theory. Noone is hiding behind it - exactly the opposite as it is the one case where everything is laid completely bare.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I understand the mathematics.
<...>
There is no "local geometry of spacetime".

You understand so little of the mathematics that you do not realize how absurd the above is!

 

[Kwalish Kid]

There is absolutely no misunderstanding on my part. I've studied the physics. You haven't.

There is indeed a sense in which this is true: Farsight has visually inspected physics. It is equally true that Farsight refuses to learn the relevant mathematics of the physics he visually inspects. This should appropriately bias readers from accepting his claims.

That's why I can give references whilst all you can do is play the hyperskeptic naysayer who clings to popscience woo in the face of bona-fide physics. Here's Einstein's Leyden Address and a couple of quotes from it:

"Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty...

An ironic choice, given that Farsight does not know how to use gmn in physics.

Why on Earth do you think Einstein or anybody else meant spacetime when they said space? You surely know that spacetime is an abstract mathematical model that depicts space at all times. It's static. There's no motion through it. Light moves through space, and we represent this with a worldline in spacetime, but light doesn't move through spacetime. It's the "block universe".

Interesting that Farsight keeps repeating a basic mistake, but hardly surprising given that he has never done physics problems. He presents a vague absolute space theory with, of course, no evidence for it and no means of using it to do a physics problem.

Wrong. Go and read Opticks query 20 where Newton said this: "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?"

Fascinating that Farsight selectively quotes a question raised by Newton in his alchemical musings and not Newton's science, where the question seems to be definitely answered.

Are you for real? Go and read what Einstein said: "Empty space in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic".

Again, interesting in that it looks to a selective quotation from Einstein while ignoring Einstein's cosmological science.

There's a mathematical definition of a field referring to tensors which are essentially matrices

This claim is somewhat sad, given that many people must have pointed out to Farsight that tensors are not matrices.

Not in physics it isn't. We have electromagnetic fields, we have gravitational fields, we have quantum field theory. We don't have "temperature fields".

Well, that is an embarrassing statement.

What do you think a gravitational field is? It's a region of space that has a particular state. We model it as curved spacetime, but make no mistake, if space didn't have that state, your pencil wouldn't fall down.

This seems like a nice example. Maybe Farsight can use his particular theory to describe the motion of a pencil? I fear to hold my breath.

No, because Einstein gave the equations of motion. If you just use the three dimensions of space you have no motion. Duh.

An interesting response, given that Farsight wishes to do away with time. Without time, there is just as little motion.

I understand the mathematics.

A clear contradiction with Farsight's earlier claims. Given his failure to produce anything that resembles a physical description, I think that there is enough evidence to disregard this claim.

And note this: Einstein's on my side. You're in the Einstein was wrong camp.

It seems very strange to cling to scientific statements of a century ago and ignore all possibility of improvement. Given that Einstein himself recognized that he had made mistakes, it seems unwise to take everything Einstein says as gospel.

 

[steenkh]

Er, no. Einstein made his most important statements in German which was translated into English.

You make me curious: it has been pointed out several times that Einstein's equations show something completely different from what you claims he said. Do you claim that Einstein's equations are wrong? Or can you show that there is no contradiction?

 

[Reality Check]

There is absolutely no misunderstanding on my part. I've studied the physics. You haven't.....

Wow Farsight!
You state that you have studied the physics and then idiotically cite a speech and a personal opinion rather than textbooks!
Then there is the delusion that you know what other posters have studied .
There is certainly a misunderstanding of what science actually is on your part, Farsight.

 

[Reality Check]

Wrong. Go and read Opticks query 20..

Wrong, Farsight.
Go read a dictionary, Farsight - that is a query
Go read the actual results of the arxiv search, Farsight. The stupidity of thinking that "Einstein-aether" in titles is referring to Einstein's ether will become obvious.

1. Farsight: (24 July 2014) Isaac Newton held that space is absolute and there is no luminiferous aether ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light#Sir_Isaac_Newton"]Corpuscular theory of light).[/URL]
2. Farsight: (25 July 2014) Can you understand the stupidity of that arXiv search that returns no citations of Einstein's ether speech?
3. Farsight: (25 July 2014) Can you understand that many of the results for that arXiv search are for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory"]Einstein aether theory?[/URL]
4. Farsight: (25 July 2014) Einstein's aether is "space endowed with physical properties". This is a field as in a gravitational field.
5. Farsight: (25 July 2014) Einstein never said that "space is not homogeneous". It was "empty space", i.e. in the real universe, matter and energy need not be homogeneous or isotropic thus the 10 equations in the EFE.

Are you for real? ...snipped made up Einstein quote...

I am really not lying like you, Farsight, about what Einstein said:

This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.

(the quoted phrase emphasized)

No, I've spoken to him a few times over the last couple of years to try to correct him, but he won't listen. Which is a shame because he's got some of it right.

There is nothing that he got right in the other thread, unless you count the obsession with a speech and Wikipedia quotes about the quantum vacuum. But if you think he got things right there, you can always state it in that thread along with the scientific evidence that supports what he got right (not speeches, not personal opinions - scientific literature such as textbooks ).

 

[Perpetual Student]

<...>

You surely know that spacetime is an abstract mathematical model that depicts space at all times. It's static. There's no motion through it. Light moves through space, and we represent this with a worldline in spacetime, but light doesn't move through spacetime. It's the "block universe".

I now see the source of your misunderstanding. What you refer to as the "block universe" others have called the "frozen river" analogy.
The analogy being that the depth and width of the river represent space (two dimensions) and the length of the (frozen) river represents time. One then considers askew slices through this frozen river as spacetime slices that depend on the relative velocity of one observer to another.
The point you are missing is that the same analogy can be used for GR, the difference being that those slices must be curved throughout to account for all massive objects (and energy) in the universe. There can be no plane slices. Think about it; it may help clear up your confusion.

 

[Reality Check]

Now you really aren't making any sense.

Now you are really demonstrating to the world the inability to read, Farsight !
Farsight: (25 July 2014) Can you understand that many of the results for that arXiv search are for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory"]Einstein aether theory?[/URL]
is quite clear: Einstein aether theory which is not a reference to Einstein's 1920 Leyden speech.

Yes, space isn't nothing. And a field is a state of space. A wave is a dynamical state of space.

Repeating ignorance does not make it correct, Farsight!
Space is sort of "nothing" - it is a mathematical construct that models the positions of real objects.
A field is not a "state of space" - it is an assignment of physical quantities to points in space.
A wave is not in general a "dynamical state of space". The closest we get to that is a gravitational wave which is a wave in spacetime.

 

[Reality Check]

Space is space, you can't define it in terms of anything else, because everything else is made of waves in it.
...rant snipped....

The first part is mostly correct - space is a fundamental property and is not defined in terms of anything else. However space has a actual definition in physics, which is not "space is space", Farsight.
The second part is just wrong - space does not wave, there are things called particles that do not wave, there are things called waves that wave even in Euclidean space.
Farsight: (29 July 2014) What is the scientific definition of space?

I did not ask for you to rant yet again about W.D.Clinger. I asked:

Farsight: (29 July 2014) What is the scientific definition of a field in physics? And the follow-on: How does this make What a field in physics really is by W.D.Clinger wrong?

I did not ask you to brag about you being an expert in relativity - this thread shows that you are not an expert in any physics stated in this thread:
* Those two different screw analogies from Maxwell and Minkowski as explained by W.D.Clinger
* The cherry picking of a query from Newton.
* The reliance on a speech from 1920!
* The use of an opinion about quantum vacuum.
* Obsessing on a semantic argument about the label "virtual particle" rather than what they do.
* Still quote mining the atomic orbitals article since 13 August 2013, Farsight
* Relying on a paper that was shown to be invalid in ctamblyn's post from 25th March 2010 There are two basic mistakes they have made, aside from their semi-classical treatment of the photon...
with 2 simple follow up questions:

Farsight (20 June 2014): Can you give a list of the refereed citations for this paper?
Farsight (20 June 2014): Can you give a list of the follow-up papers from Williamson and van der Mark?​

* William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (died 17 December 1907). Peter Guthrie Tait (died 4 July 1901)
* Citing imaginary conversations: Farsight (19th June 2014): What was the content of the conversation between Hu and Atiyah?
* Thinking citing a blue torus image on a Mathematic department page is support for any electron = torus or vortex idea!

You have lied to us because of that ignorance, e.g. you posted a cartoon that you said was the addition of E and B fields of a point charge but the B field was for a current!
Farsight's imaginary spiral cartoons (1 May 2014)

The inability to answer questions indicates your ignorance:
Farsight (27 May 2014 ): What is the charge of a photon? What does this mean for Maxwell's equations for the interaction between two photons?
Or Farsight (28th May 2014: Do photons have direct interactions with each other?
However you may have grasped the concept that photons cannot directly interact after your assertion that they do.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

Do you believe being able to understand these discussions is good for a person?

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight: Different aether from different authors

[I will start with a point about Farsight's "aether": We call it "your aether" because it is not whatever you imagine Einstein, Minkowski, Maxwell, Newton (which is actually a lie ), Robert B Laughlin and a few more people in arXiv spoke of. For a start, they are talking of different "aether"!

Let us start with Isaac Newton

Newton argued that light is composed of particles or corpuscles, which were refracted by accelerating into a denser medium. He verged on soundlike waves to explain the repeated pattern of reflection and transmission by thin films (Opticks Bk.II, Props. 12), but still retained his theory of 'fits' that disposed corpuscles to be reflected or transmitted (Props.13).

THE THIRD BOOK OF OPTICKS has queries about the role of a "Æthereal Medium" in which vibrations travelled faster than the speed of light causing "Fits" which caused refraction and diffraction.

Newton's ether was never a scientific theory from him - it was a suggestion at most.

Maxwell's ether is the Luminiferous aether for which there no evidence.

Minkowski's ether does not seem to exist at all! That demands a new question in another post.

Einstein's ether is gravitational fields ("space endowed with physical qualities")
Robert B Laughlin's ether is the quantum vacuum. The quote starts talking about SR and GR as a explanation why the word "'ether' is not used.

The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity

and then goes onto his subject - the quantum vacuum

About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[7]

Einstein aether theory is nothing to do with any of the above aether ("a unit timelike vector field named the æther")!

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight: Citation for Minkowski "speaking about" aether

I will start with a point about Farsight's "aether": We call it "your aether" because it is not whatever you imagine Einstein, Minkowski, Maxwell, Newton (which is actually a lie ), Robert B Laughlin and a few more people in arXiv spoke of. For a start, they are talking of different "aether"!

There is another possibility though. This statement was in reply to

Einstein spoke of aether, as did Minkowski and Maxwell and Newton and Robert B Laughlin and loads more people.

It is just possible that Farsight was stating the trivial: The word "aether" exists and people have spoken or written that word - well duh !
Some people spoke of aether between Newton's suggested fudge factor of an "Aethereal Medium" to explain diffraction in 1704 and 1818.
Maybe millions of scientists have spoken of aether since it was proposed in 1818 and disposed of in 1887.
Since 1887 and especially 1905 and 1915, a lot fewer people have spoken of aether.

There is still no citation for Minkowski "speaking about" aether from you, Farsight.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Farsight celebrated a triple own goal

Well that's one way to dismiss Einstein because you think you know better. Clinger, get this: you don't. And note this: Einstein's on my side. You're in the Einstein was wrong camp.

Actually, I'm in the Farsight is often wrong about what Einstein meant camp.

I don't ignore the mathematics. I understand the mathematics. You don't.

The best part of your act is you aren't actually trying to be funny.

Listen up Clinger, you absolutely do not understand relativity, because you still dismiss Einstein, and you still don't understand the difference between space and spacetime. There is no "local geometry of spacetime".

By denying "local geometry of spacetime", you are (once again) arguing with Einstein. In Einstein's introduction to The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein wrote:

The mathematical apparatus useful for the general relativity theory, lay already complete in the "Absolute Differential Calculus", which were based on the researches of Gauss, Riemann and Christoffel on the non-Euclidean manifold, and which have been shaped into a system by Ricci and Levi-Civita,

The modern name for "Absolute Differential Calculus" is differential geometry, and "local" is a synonym for "differential". The bulk of Einstein's paper is devoted to his exposition of spacetime as a (pseudo-) Riemannian geometry.

You, of course, got lost at equation (3) of that paper's 75 numbered equations, and still haven't figured out what those g_στ are about (hint: they're about the local geometry of spacetime), so no one can blame you for having no clue about the basic concepts of general relativity. We can, however, blame you for pretending to be the JREF forum's foremost expert in a subject you understand so poorly.

Just for grins, let's look at the "evidence" you've provided to show I and others don't understand the distinction between space and spacetime:

Au contraire, those who have a popscience misunderstanding of general relativity confuse spacetime with space. Those who have studied general relativity understand the difference. Hence on the Baez website you can read this: "Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial."

Take a closer look at that highlighted phrase:

not space, but spacetime
Compare what Baez is saying with what you were saying:

Space. Not spacetime. LOL! Clinger, you are so easy to whup.

That's celebrating an own goal.

But that's not the half of it. Within the space of two lines, you celebrated a triple own goal. Here's your full paragraph:

You're talking out of your hat as ever. See Robert B Laughlin talking about "conceptualizing space as a medium". Space. Not spacetime. LOL! Clinger, you are so easy to whup.

The highlighted link takes to us a Wikipedia section that begins:

Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support.

I realize Wikipedia is not authoritative, but linking to a Wikipedia paragraph that directly contradicts the claim you were making is definitely an own goal.

You probably intended to link to the following section, on "Quantum vacuum", which contains your favorite Laughlin proof-text but begins with this:

Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being non-empty at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly.

You have often ridiculed this idea, but Robert B Laughlin likes the word "ether" because (for him, if for no one else) the word "ether" conjures an image of space "filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part."

Intending to link to a Wikipedia section that directly supports an idea you've been ridiculing was your third own goal of that paragraph.