"Foundational Flaws in Physics" - Conclusions

On May 30, 6:45*am, wrote:
On May 29, 5:19*pm, Benj wrote:





On May 29, 2:11 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Einstain wrote: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light
medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest".

SR predicts that "attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
the ``light medium,'' will be unsuccessful. Now geodedists measure to the
space (the same like ``light medium").

Look at what Einstein said here. *"Possess no properties corresponding
to the idea of absolute rest." *What this means is that the idea of
Michelson and Maxwell and others of a "space" that exists as a kind of
"absolute" Cartesian lattice in space that determines all phenomena
has to be wrong. *Let us say that it is Aether that determines space
and it's relationship to other dimensions and phenomena. Next we note
that aether is not a fixed solid, but a flowing dynamic frictionless
river with extreme properties. *Our WHOLE perception is fixed WITHIN
that river! *Thus, we never observe the various flows and contortions
of the aether. *What we observe is variations in fundamental laws and
properties. *It's a lot like being in flatland and trying to perceive
higher dimensions. Your purview is too narrow to have a vision of what
is going on. So the error everyone makes is imagining space as some
computer-graphic Cartesian 3-D gridwork fixed in space, whereas
Einstein has told us that in truth space is a flowing liquid world
with orthogonal curvilinear coordinates attached to it and indeed WE
ALSO exist within that flowing orthogonal reference frame and hence
never perceive that we too are liquid flowing beings within the aether
space. *THAT, all you guys who think they are smarter than Einstein is
where Einstein was right and the rest of physics even now continues to
be wrong.

Your meter rod is bent in curved space. It has extension that is
curved.

You're bent in the Earth's space right now.

Gravity is round geometry and slower time by Gamma.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-------------
one of the big lies of last century is
that
*GR was predictiong anything**

**it was predicting nothing **!!

it was 'fiddling in' data to the theory

and the fact is that
'if there is no mass - there isno curvature '!!

if curved spacetime is dependant on the existance
of something else
THAN IT IS DEPENDANT !!
**by its very existance** (and not independant)
you cant even say that it is just dependant quantitatively
(relativistically to something else )
but not qualitatively !!
because it is dependant QUALITATIVELY by something else
that is a more basic physics entity ie -- mass!!.

it is dependant by its **very existance** on mass !!

and dos not exist for itself
only idiots of scuckers do not realize it
a basic physical entity should not be dependant
by its very existance ---- on anything !!

we can live nicely with some prporty of mass
relacing 'curved space time
not to mention that 'Time' is not natures invention
but a human aiding invention

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

On May 29, 12:53 pm, GSS wrote:
On May 22, 8:20 pm, "Jan Gooral" wrote: The text below contains my findings which may be of interest to
people who have inquisitive minds and want to discover how Nature
really works. (This text is taken from my book "Foundational Flaws
in Modern Physics", which can be found atwww.revisedphysics.com)

CONCLUSIONS
.......
As is pointed out in §4.6
(www.revisedphysics.com/P416.HTM), the belief - that spacetime
curvature explains gravitational attraction - is incorrect. As is
explained in chapter 3, the assumption - that time is the fourth
dimension - leads to contradictions with evidence and paradoxes.
Hence, spacetime can only be considered as a mathematical concept.

Yes most of the relativists also agree that spacetime continuum is
only a mathematical concept. In spite of this they keep insisting that
GR is a physical thoory and not just a mathematical model. In this
regard kindly refer to a previous discussion thread,http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...
..........

So even though EP was once inspiring and helpful, right now it only
confuses people. It implies that there is equivalence between
coordinate and physical effects, between effects of gravitation and
effects of motion, etc. - but modern experimental evidence disproves
this.
The fact that EP is not a law of Nature - tells us that there is no
relativity of acceleration; which means that the general relativity
principle is untenable.
.....
Moreover, it is time to stop implying that inertia of bodies originates
from other masses. If this were the case - inertia of a body would
be increasing as it approaches other bodies. Hence, we would have
to assume that either the mass-energy of this body is not proportional
to its inertia, or that the law of conservation of energy is contradicted.
As was explained in §2.3.4 (www.revisedphysics.com/P329.HTM),
the assumption - that inertial effects arise as a result of forces induced
by apparently accelerating masses of the universe - is also untenable.
We must finally realize that general relativity is only a
phenomenological theory and that its applicability and validity have
limits.

Since GR is essentially constructed out of 'spacetime continuum' which
is just a mathematical notion and not a physical entity, we must
regard GR as a mathematical model used for generating trajectories of
bodies in a gravitational field. A physical theory must provide
causal explanations of the physical phenomenon.


I think Einstein thought of it as a physical entity. There exists a
real measurable quantity g_uv at every point in space. Similarly
there exists a real temperature at every point in a gas. This was
understood to a certain degree before Boltzmann's kinetic theory of
gases, just because the details are not understood doesn't make the
theory incorrect.

As was pointed out, the causal effects of motion (which we observe)
prove that there is some background space; no matter how it
originates, or how we call it: space, background, field, ether or
whatever else. Moreover, this background space has physical
properties; and as we know, it's these properties which dictate the
speed of light.

I agree.
........

Hence it seems that properties of
space also have a say about how much energy is needed to create a
given particle. The electrostatic field of a charged particle contains
energy, which constitutes part of the mass of the particle. ........
So - as is evident - appreciating that space
has physical properties leads to explanations of many phenomena.
Even if the origin of this background space could be questioned, its
existence is evident and undeniable. I do not believe that we can
ever understand how Nature works, if we don't acknowledge the
existence of space as a physically and causally active entity.

You are right. I fully endorse your viewpoint.
......

Here's another endorsement


As we have seen, the misunderstanding of special
relativity led to adopting a point particle model of elementary
particles in quantum electrodynamics and then in quantum field
theory. In result structures of particles are not studied. It is also
due to our misunderstanding of relativity that properties of space are
not investigated and not taken into consideration. This in turn
makes it impossible for us to understand quantum properties of matter
and quantum effects in general.........

It is not our 'misunderstanding of relativity' but the misleading
assertions of relativity that are at the root of the problem.


What is the problem exactly?


It can't explain inertial effects. And it cannot explain the value of
the speed of light. The above phenomena can be explained only by
a theory in which space is considered as a physical entity with
properties, but such space cannot be incorporated into Einstein's
theory. So his relativity theory can never be changed into a
constructive/explanatory theory.

Then why not discard it?


I see no reason why such space cannot be incorporated into Einstein's
theory. Indeed it must be able to be incorporated into the theory, it
must explain why the theory works.

As Robert J. Kolker pointed out, one can always ask again "why" in a
game played by children everywhere. Just because there is a point
that we cannot answer the question does not make previous answers
invalid or discard-ready.







In his book, Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of
Everything, F. David Peat wrote that: "The time may have come for
physics to ask some deep questions, for concealed in one of these may
well be the theory of the twenty-first century" (Peat: [R#12] p.338).
Indeed the state of physics of the twenty-first century depends on
whether we want to seriously ask ourselves:

Let me take a crack at these..

Is our reality really four-dimensional?

Certainly many more dimensions are required. An N particle system can
be described fully with a point in no less than 7*N dimensions.

Is time really a dimension?

Yes, if you choose to treat it that way and it is very helpful to do
so.

Is space just an empty void without properties?

Certainly not, there exists everywhere in space e.g. an
electromagnetic field and a gravitational field.

Are there no dynamical/causal effects of motion?

What?

Are elementary particles dimensionless and structureless points?

Clearly not, though at some level of macroscopic analysis one can
safely treat them as such.

Is a static field just a hail of points or degrees of freedom
endlessly emitted by its source?

I don't understand this one either.. degrees of freedom and points
are mathematical tools and not physical things to be "emitted"...

As has been shown in this book, experimental evidence indicates that
the above questions must be answered in the negative. However,
this means that we have to radically change the way we view,
understand and interpret reality. And we don't need a new Einstein
this time. We only need to have a sober and unprejudiced look at
all experimental evidence. Some of us may be afraid of changes and
prefer status quo. But the changes in our understanding of reality
will take place sooner or later (even if many choose to hide their
head in the sand). The only question is: When will this happen?
The answer to this last question does not depend on me, it depends
on you dear reader. It is believed by many prominent physicists
that a new revolution in physics is coming. My hope is that by
bringing these questions and issues to your attention - I helped you
realise what kind of revolution it's going to be. I also hope that this
in turn helps you to take part in this revolution.

J. M. Góral (Gooral)

I appreciate your viewpoint.

I agree with most of your views, except for the relativity theories.
Whereas you have noticed 'some flaws' in SR and GR, I find them to be
invalid and misleading as physical theories, primarily due to the
invalidity of their founding postulates.

GSShttp://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

Thanks for the reading material- cheers

On May 30, 12:54 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
GSS wrote:
On May 29, 5:59 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

GSS wrote:

I appreciate your viewpoint.

I agree with most of your views, except for the relativity theories.
Whereas you have noticed 'some flaws' in SR and GR, I find them to be
invalid and misleading as physical theories, primarily due to the
invalidity of their founding postulates.

But they sure do predict well. And that is ALL that matters. A physical
theory is a man-made intellectual artifact for predicting the outcome of
experiments.

Bob Kolker

A physical theory must provide a causal explanation of the phenomenon
apart from the mathematical model capable of accurate predictions. For

The causes are usually hypothetical. In fact all assertions of necessary
causal connexion between events is hypothetical. Why. Because ALL WE
PERCEIVE is that event of type A is followed or contiguous to event of
type B. Hume pointed this out in his Enquiry.

Wrong.

Even if a cause is provided then one asks what is the cause of the
cause. What is the cause of the cause of the cause... etc. In short the
insistence on cause as a real thing leads to an infinite regress. In
short trying to find ultimate causes is essentially like ****ing up a rope.

No you shouldn't do that!

So the only non-regressive approach is that of a hypothetical model
(which we call a theory) and that is as good as it gets.

Bob Kolker

Causality denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called
cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct
consequence (result) of the first. If a certain sequence of events is
not causally connected, that set of events will be referred as random
events. If a sequence of events is causally connected, we may
attribute such causal connection between events to certain physical
law of nature. If appropriate logical explanation is available for the
causal connection between events then such causal connection plus the
appropriate logical explanation is called a physical theory of the
associated phenomenon. A mathematical model is simply a mathematical
representation of the causal connection between events, it doesn't
provide the necessary logical explanation for such connection.

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

On May 30, 12:55 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Are the founding postulates valid?
S*

Do they lead to correct predictions?

Is the theory which is grounded on them falsified by experiment?

Bob Kolker

Experimenting with a physical phenomenon in the absence of an
appropriate physical theory is akin to groping in the dark. A physical
theory can in fact be compared with mental 'eye sight' as illustrated
in the following popular tale.
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index...tter=B&spage=3

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

GSS wrote:


Causality denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called
cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct

What necessary relationship? No one has ever -perceived- a necessary
relationship. They have only -postulated- necessary realtionships.

Read Hume's Enquiry or his Treatise. He has never been refuted on two
issues.

1. Induction is not a valid mode of inference. It is a great way for
generating postulates, though.

2. No one has ever perceived a necessary connection between event types.
This is a special case of #1 above.

Bob Kolker

GSS wrote:


Experimenting with a physical phenomenon in the absence of an
appropriate physical theory is akin to groping in the dark. A physical
theory can in fact be compared with mental 'eye sight' as illustrated
in the following popular tale.
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index...tter=B&spage=3

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

If you barf on relativity, the quantum physics should send you to the
Emergency Room.

Then turn in all your quantum based technological gadgets and your GPS
forthwith and immediately.

Bob Kolker

On May 30, 3:12 pm, wrote:
On May 29, 12:53 pm, GSS wrote:
On May 22, 8:20 pm, "Jan Gooral" wrote:
The text below contains my findings which may be of interest to
people who have inquisitive minds and want to discover how Nature
really works. (This text is taken from my book "Foundational Flaws
in Modern Physics", which can be found atwww.revisedphysics.com)

CONCLUSIONS
.......
As is pointed out in §4.6
(www.revisedphysics.com/P416.HTM), the belief - that spacetime
curvature explains gravitational attraction - is incorrect. As is
explained in chapter 3, the assumption - that time is the fourth
dimension - leads to contradictions with evidence and paradoxes.
Hence, spacetime can only be considered as a mathematical concept.

Yes most of the relativists also agree that spacetime continuum is
only a mathematical concept. In spite of this they keep insisting that
GR is a physical theory and not just a mathematical model. In this
regard kindly refer to a previous discussion thread, http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1aebed2f266971
..........
We must finally realize that general relativity is only a
phenomenological theory and that its applicability and validity have
limits.

Since GR is essentially constructed out of 'spacetime continuum' which
is just a mathematical notion and not a physical entity, we must
regard GR as a mathematical model used for generating trajectories of
bodies in a gravitational field. A physical theory must provide
causal explanations of the physical phenomenon.

I think Einstein thought of it as a physical entity. There exists a
real measurable quantity g_uv at every point in space. Similarly
there exists a real temperature at every point in a gas. This was
understood to a certain degree before Boltzmann's kinetic theory of
gases, just because the details are not understood doesn't make the
theory incorrect.

Kindly refer to the detailed discussions under the above referred
thread " Fallacious Notion of Spacetime Continuum in Relativity",
where the relativity experts have agreed and confirmed that spacetime
continuum is only an abstract mathematical notion. The real problem
however is that if you assume the spacetime continuum to be a physical
entity and consider the metric coefficients g_uv as 'real measurable
quantities at every point in space' then it can be shown that the
popular notion of space curvature actually refers to incompatible
deformation of space.

As was pointed out, the causal effects of motion (which we observe)
prove that there is some background space; no matter how it
originates, or how we call it: space, background, field, ether or
whatever else. Moreover, this background space has physical
properties; and as we know, it's these properties which dictate the
speed of light.

I agree.
........

Hence it seems that properties of
space also have a say about how much energy is needed to create a
given particle. The electrostatic field of a charged particle contains
energy, which constitutes part of the mass of the particle. ........
So - as is evident - appreciating that space
has physical properties leads to explanations of many phenomena.
Even if the origin of this background space could be questioned, its
existence is evident and undeniable. I do not believe that we can
ever understand how Nature works, if we don't acknowledge the
existence of space as a physically and causally active entity.

You are right. I fully endorse your viewpoint.
......

Here's another endorsement

As we have seen, the misunderstanding of special
relativity led to adopting a point particle model of elementary
particles in quantum electrodynamics and then in quantum field
theory. In result structures of particles are not studied. It is also
due to our misunderstanding of relativity that properties of space are
not investigated and not taken into consideration. This in turn
makes it impossible for us to understand quantum properties of matter
and quantum effects in general.........

It is not our 'misunderstanding of relativity' but the misleading
assertions of relativity that are at the root of the problem.

What is the problem exactly?

As pointed out above,
(a) The spacetime continuum, out of which GR has been 'fabricated' is
only an abstract mathematical entity.
(b) Even if you assume the spacetime continuum to be a physical
entity, the popular notion of curvature of space curvature can
actually be shown to correspond to a set of incompatible deformations
of space.
(c) The mathematical model of GR has been developed as a 4-D graphical
template to represent the gravitational trajectories as geodesic
curves in spacetime manifold.
(d) There is no causal mechanism and no logical explanation as to how
the mass-energy content in a certain region (say our solar system)
could physically influence the metric of spacetime, especially the
past and future regions of spacetime.

It can't explain inertial effects. And it cannot explain the value of
the speed of light. The above phenomena can be explained only by
a theory in which space is considered as a physical entity with
properties, but such space cannot be incorporated into Einstein's
theory. So his relativity theory can never be changed into a
constructive/explanatory theory.

Then why not discard it?

I see no reason why such space cannot be incorporated into Einstein's
theory. Indeed it must be able to be incorporated into the theory, it
must explain why the theory works.

The reason why such physical space cannot be incorporated into
Einstein's theory is that such a physical space demands the existence
of an absolute background, a universal reference frame which is
fundamentally incompatible with relativity.
....
In his book, Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of
Everything, F. David Peat wrote that: "The time may have come for
physics to ask some deep questions, for concealed in one of these may
well be the theory of the twenty-first century" (Peat: [R#12] p.338).
Indeed the state of physics of the twenty-first century depends on
whether we want to seriously ask ourselves:

Let me take a crack at these..

Is our reality really four-dimensional?

Certainly many more dimensions are required. An N particle system can
be described fully with a point in no less than 7*N dimensions.

Here you are referring to the term dimensions as mathematical degrees
of freedom. Kindly refer to the subject of dimensional analysis and
see the notion of physical dimensions. Here the OP's real concern
appears to be regarding the 'four-dimensional' spacetime continuum.
Just as the physical space can be referred as 'three-dimensional'
continuum, the OP's question is whether the physical reality could be
described as a 'four-dimensional' spacetime continuum. As discussed
above the spacetime continuum is not a physical entity.
Is time really a dimension?

Yes, if you choose to treat it that way and it is very helpful to do
so.

Is space just an empty void without properties?

Certainly not, there exists everywhere in space e.g. an
electromagnetic field and a gravitational field.

Are there no dynamical/causal effects of motion?

What?

That is, can you treat all motion simply as a pure kinematic
phenomenon?
Are elementary particles dimensionless and structureless points?

Clearly not, though at some level of macroscopic analysis one can
safely treat them as such.

Is a static field just a hail of points or degrees of freedom
endlessly emitted by its source?

I don't understand this one either.. degrees of freedom and points
are mathematical tools and not physical things to be "emitted"...

The question is whether such 'fields' are only the mathematical
representations or something physical which could be mentally
visualized. For example in my book (Fundamental Nature of Matter and
Fields) under review on the usenet, I have shown these fields to be
the dynamic stress / strain fields in the space-time.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

GSS

On May 30, 3:59*pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
GSS wrote:

Experimenting with a physical phenomenon in the absence of an
appropriate physical theory is akin to groping in the dark. A physical
theory can in fact be compared with mental 'eye sight' as illustrated
in the following popular tale.
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index...tter=B&spage=3

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

If you barf on relativity, the quantum physics should send you to the
Emergency Room.

Then turn in all your quantum based technological gadgets and your GPS
forthwith and immediately.

Bob Kolker

-------------------
GPS is based on SR
but not whatsoever on GR

Y.Porat
---------------------------

On May 30, 6:28*am, GSS wrote:
On May 30, 3:12 pm, wrote:



On May 29, 12:53 pm, GSS wrote:
On May 22, 8:20 pm, "Jan Gooral" wrote:
* *The text below contains my findings which may be of interest to
people who have inquisitive minds and want to discover how Nature
really works. (This text is taken from my book "Foundational Flaws
in Modern Physics", which can be found atwww.revisedphysics.com)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CONCLUSIONS
.......
* *As is pointed out in §4.6
(www.revisedphysics.com/P416.HTM), the belief - that spacetime
curvature explains gravitational attraction - is incorrect. *As is
explained in chapter 3, the assumption - that time is the fourth
dimension - leads to contradictions with evidence and paradoxes.
Hence, spacetime can only be considered as a mathematical concept.

Yes most of the relativists also agree that spacetime continuum is
only a mathematical concept. In spite of this they keep insisting that
GR is a physical theory and not just a mathematical model. In this
regard kindly refer to a previous discussion thread,http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...
..........
* We must finally realize that general relativity is only a
phenomenological theory and that its applicability and validity have
limits.

Since GR is essentially constructed out of 'spacetime continuum' which
is just a mathematical notion and not a physical entity, we must
regard GR as a mathematical model used for generating trajectories of
bodies in a gravitational field. *A physical theory must provide
causal explanations of the physical phenomenon.

I think Einstein thought of it as a physical entity. *There exists a
real measurable quantity g_uv at every point in space. *Similarly
there exists a real temperature at every point in a gas. *This was
understood to a certain degree before Boltzmann's kinetic theory of
gases, just because the details are not understood doesn't make the
theory incorrect.

Kindly refer to the detailed discussions under the above referred
thread " Fallacious Notion of Spacetime Continuum in Relativity",
where the relativity experts have agreed and confirmed that spacetime
continuum is only an abstract mathematical notion. The real problem
however is that if you assume the spacetime continuum to be a physical
entity and consider the metric coefficients g_uv as 'real measurable
quantities at every point in space' then it can be shown that the
popular notion of space curvature actually refers to incompatible
deformation of space.





* As was pointed out, the causal effects of motion (which we observe)
prove that there is some background space; no matter how it
originates, or how we call it: space, background, field, ether or
whatever else. *Moreover, this background space has physical
properties; and as we know, it's these properties which dictate the
speed of light.

I agree.
........

*Hence it seems that properties of
space also have a say about how much energy is needed to create a
given particle. *The electrostatic field of a charged particle contains
energy, which constitutes part of the mass of the particle. *.........
*So - as is evident - appreciating that space
has physical properties leads to explanations of many phenomena.
Even if the origin of this background space could be questioned, its
existence is evident and undeniable. *I do not believe that we can
ever understand how Nature works, if we don't acknowledge the
existence of space as a physically and causally active entity.

You are right. I fully endorse your viewpoint.
......

Here's another endorsement

*As we have seen, the misunderstanding of special
relativity led to adopting a point particle model of elementary
particles in quantum electrodynamics and then in quantum field
theory. *In result structures of particles are not studied. *It is also
due to our misunderstanding of relativity that properties of space are
not investigated and not taken into consideration. *This in turn
makes it impossible for us to understand quantum properties of matter
and quantum effects in general.........

It is not our 'misunderstanding of relativity' but the misleading
assertions of relativity that are at the root of the problem.

What is the problem exactly?

As pointed out above,
(a) The spacetime continuum, out of which GR has been 'fabricated' is
only an abstract mathematical entity.
(b) Even if you assume the spacetime continuum to be a physical
entity, the popular notion of curvature of space curvature can
actually be shown to correspond to a set of incompatible deformations
of space.
(c) The mathematical model of GR has been developed as a 4-D graphical
template to represent the gravitational trajectories as geodesic
curves in spacetime manifold.
(d) There is no causal mechanism and no logical explanation as to how
the mass-energy content in a certain region (say our solar system)
could physically influence the metric of spacetime, especially the
past and future regions of spacetime.

It can't explain inertial effects. *And it cannot explain the value of
the speed of light. *The above phenomena can be explained only by
a theory in which space is considered as a physical entity with
properties, but such space cannot be incorporated into Einstein's
theory. *So his relativity theory can never be changed into a
constructive/explanatory theory.

Then why not discard it?

I see no reason why such space cannot be incorporated into Einstein's
theory. *Indeed it must be able to be incorporated into the theory, it
must explain why the theory works.

The reason why such physical space cannot be incorporated into
Einstein's theory is that such a physical space demands the existence
of an absolute background, a universal reference frame which is
fundamentally incompatible with relativity. ....
* In his book, Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of
Everything, F. David Peat wrote that: "The time may have come for
physics to ask some deep questions, for concealed in one of these may
well be the theory of the twenty-first century" (Peat: [R#12] p.338)..
* Indeed the state of physics of the twenty-first century depends on
whether we want to seriously ask ourselves:

Let me take a crack at these..

* *Is our reality really four-dimensional?

Certainly many more dimensions are required. *An N particle system can
be described fully with a point in no less than 7*N dimensions.

Here you are referring to the term dimensions as mathematical degrees
of freedom. Kindly refer to the subject of dimensional analysis and
see the notion of physical dimensions. Here the OP's *real concern
appears to be regarding the 'four-dimensional' spacetime continuum.
Just as the physical space can be referred as 'three-dimensional'
continuum, the OP's question is whether the physical reality could be
described as a 'four-dimensional' spacetime continuum. As discussed
above the spacetime continuum is not a physical entity. * *Is time really a dimension?

Yes, if you choose to treat it that way and it is very helpful to do
so.

* *Is space just an empty void without properties?

Certainly not, there exists everywhere in space e.g. an
electromagnetic field and a gravitational field.

* *Are there no dynamical/causal effects of motion?

What?

That is, can you treat all motion simply as a pure kinematic
phenomenon? * *Are elementary particles dimensionless and structureless points?

Clearly not, though at some level of macroscopic analysis one can
safely treat them as such.

* *Is a static field just a hail of points or degrees of freedom
endlessly emitted by its source?

I don't understand this one either.. *degrees of freedom and points
are mathematical tools and not physical things to be "emitted"...

The question is whether such 'fields' are only the mathematical
representations or *something physical which could be mentally
visualized. For example in my book (Fundamental Nature of Matter and
Fields) under review on the usenet, I have shown these fields to be
the dynamic stress / strain fields in the space-time.http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

GSS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gravity is round geometry with the slowdown of time by Gamma.

Mitch Raemsch; Falling light changes colour

Y.Porat wrote:



-------------------
GPS is based on SR
but not whatsoever on GR

Wrong. Gravitational Red Shift is factored in.

Bob Kolker