Philosophy Now Forum

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:51 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 5:06 pm Is there any point in 3D space where no matter exists?

Unsure how that relates to my text you quoted. Lots of qualification needed for that question.

1) A point in space is a timelike abstract worldline. Any such line must pass through regions where matter is sufficiently hot and dense that light cannot penetrate it. So that answer is reasonably 'no'. So for the rest, we'll assume a physical point in spacetime (an event) instead of an abstract point in space.

2) The statement presumes counterfactuals: that an unmeasured system (say the local spacetime at some randomly selected event) is in some meaningful state despite not being measured. The universe has been shown to be non-classical, and that suggests that the counterfactual principle is not likely the case. But we'll assume it anyway, leading us to:

3) It depends on your definition of 'matter'.

Have you human beings, here, really not even come to an agreement, an acceptance, and an understanding on the definition of the 'matter' word, yet?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:51 pm Quantum field theory suggests that the universe is pervaded by a relatively small number of fields,

'Fields' of 'what', exactly? Corn, rice, wheat, sunflowers, or ....?

Are they 'fields of energy', or may be 'fields of matter'? But, if it is the latter, then it depends on your definition of 'matter', right?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:51 pm and the fundamentals of matter are disturbances in these omnipresent fields.

'Disturbances' of 'what', exactly? In the ABSOLUTELY EVERY WHERE PRESENT 'fields', of may be 'grass'.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:51 pm Whether all the fields happen to not be in a sufficiently disturbed state or not at our chosen event has to do with your threshold of how disturbed it must be,

Now 'we' are 'back to' the 'it' word, again. So, what is the 'it' word in your sentence referring to, exactly?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:51 pm but the answer seems likely 'yes' then.

But let 'us' NOT FORGET that is ONLY in 'this ONE of MANY DIFFERENT theories', of which EVERY 'theory' is, essentially, JUST A GUESS of 'what MIGHT BE', ONLY.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:51 pm They've made some pretty hard vacuum in labs on Earth,

So, in areas where particles of air matter exist, supposedly, some so-called 'pretty hard vacuum' have been made.

I wonder what the difference is between a 'pretty hard vacuum', and, an 'actual vacuum' is, exactly.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:51 pm but still more dense than in deep space where dark matter dominates.

Now 'we' are 'back to' the term and phrase 'dark matter' is presented as though 'dark matter' is some 'actual thing'.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:51 pm Thing is, there's all sorts of radiation anywhere in deep space. You can see stuff in all directions from any vantage point.

From 'any' 'vantage point'. Yet the ONLY 'vantage point' these human beings had was 'from earth' and from a very tiny number of objects very tiny distances 'from earth', ONLY.

Also, what is the 'actual stuff', between objects of visibility, which supposedly can be seen 'in all directions', from 'any vantage point', exactly?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:51 pm The vacuum in a lab is in a box that blocks much of that radiation. Stuff still gets through, like neutrinos for instance, but those are not omnipresent.

So, essentially 'it' is NOT 'a vacuum'. And, obviously 'neutrinos' are NOT 'omnipresent' otherwise there would NOT be ANY thing else, CLEARLY.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:13 pm

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:51 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 5:06 pm Is there any point in 3D space where no matter exists?

Unsure how that relates to my text you quoted. Lots of qualification needed for that question.

1) A point in space is a timelike abstract worldline. Any such line must pass through regions where matter is sufficiently hot and dense that light cannot penetrate it. So that answer is reasonably 'no'. So for the rest, we'll assume a physical point in spacetime (an event) instead of an abstract point in space.

2) The statement presumes counterfactuals: that an unmeasured system (say the local spacetime at some randomly selected event) is in some meaningful state despite not being measured. The universe has been shown to be non-classical, and that suggests that the counterfactual principle is not likely the case. But we'll assume it anyway, leading us to:

3) It depends on your definition of 'matter'. Quantum field theory suggests that the universe is pervaded by a relatively small number of fields, and the fundamentals of matter are disturbances in these omnipresent fields. Whether all the fields happen to not be in a sufficiently disturbed state or not at our chosen event has to do with your threshold of how disturbed it must be, but the answer seems likely 'yes' then. They've made some pretty hard vacuum in labs on Earth, but still more dense than in deep space where dark matter dominates. Thing is, there's all sorts of radiation anywhere in deep space. You can see stuff in all directions from any vantage point. The vacuum in a lab is in a box that blocks much of that radiation. Stuff still gets through, like neutrinos for instance, but those are not omnipresent.

Thanks. The quantum fields are what interest me the most.

And, what are 'quantum fields', exactly?

How many are there?

What separates each one from another one, exactly?

And, WHY do 'quantum fields' interest you the most for, exactly, and interest you in relation to 'what', exactly?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:13 pm For me (call it a wackjob theory if u want), I think of all conceivable points in 3D space as either having an event or not, like something akin to a binary universe - event/no event.

Are there 'any points', which can not be conceived?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:13 pm These events

What events? you just claimed there are also 'no events'. And, how does one differentiate between 'an event' and a 'non event', exactly?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:13 pm makeup the various fields

The 'various fields' of 'what', exactly?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:13 pm that are in play and hence the particles that physicists are comprehending per the Standard Model. So, I believe that 'something' at a scale imperceptible to our analysis (below the Planck scale), is doing the required switching throughout 3D space that forms the effects of these particles of the Standard Model, and hence our reality.

Is 'your, or human being, reality' is the SAME AS what you pronoun and write AS REAL-IT-Y?

If no, then what is the ACTUAL 'difference', here?

Also, what is Wrong with there is an infinite in size area where what exists are just visible things called 'matter', and, a non visible distance between and around 'matter', itself, some times just called to as 'space', itself. These two things co-exist together ALWAYS, in the HERE, and NOW. And, the interaction of 'matter', with itself, which is allowed to happen completely freely because of the non visible 'space' between 'matter', which exerts 'energy', which creates absolutely every thing, which is just WHAT God IS, exactly, and HOW God 'influences/creates' absolutely EVERY thing, FROM the inner most of EVERY thing?

The Creator WITH-and-IN EVERY thing is NOT a 'force' but is just an 'Energy' GUIDING, and thus does HAVE CONTROL OVER, EVERY thing.

What are some times referred to as 'particles' are, STILL, just 'matter', itself, and from which the 'spin', from the smallest of 'matter', around 'matter' and in existence with 'matter' causes, or creates, an opposing energy 'force', resulting in magnetism, which is what causes and creates what you were referring to as 'an event'/'no event', or what is also some times referred to as 'ying'/''yang', which both are NEEDED, for the Universe to be in a CONSTANT STATE of CONTINUAL CHANGE.

The resulting 'magnetism' from the 'spin of matter' is also what creates what is referred to as 'gravity', and also the 'repel' or 'expanding' of apparent larger objects of 'matter', as like what is being observed after what was called the 'big bang'.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:38 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 5:06 pm

Is there any point in 3D space where no matter exists?

Is there matter between the two smallest pieces of matter'?

It's both, there is and there isn't - it's binary - either there is an event or there isn't an event.

you appear to not be understanding my question at all.

What is the smallest known 'pieces of matter' called to you?

To some those 'pieces or particles of matter' are called 'quarks'. Now, what is in between two quarks? If there is 'matter', then what is the name of those pieces or particles of matter? They obviously can NOT be called 'quarks'.

Also, notice how 'your answer' is NOT answering 'my question' asked 'to you'.

I asked, 'Is there matter ...?'

And, you replied with, 'It's both, ...'.

I have NO idea NOR clue as to WHAT IS both. What does your 'It' word referring to, exactly?

And, AGAIN, 'Is there matter between the two smallest pieces of matter'?'

Also, in regards to there is 'an event' or there is not 'an event'. There is One ONLY event, which has been happening and occurring HERE-NOW, and FOREVER. Which, by the way, the word 'time' only relates to the measured length of duration between PERCEIVED 'events'. I say, 'perceived events', with an 's', because there are NOT actual 'separated events'. There is ONLY One event ALWAYS HAPPENING.

As your INABILITY to PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE of ANY separation between 'an event' and a supposed 'no event' will PROVE True.

...OMG you are amazing, you comprehend soooo much

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 8:28 pm ...OMG you are amazing, you comprehend soooo much

It appears you did NOT comprehend ANY thing that I said and wrote, above here.

Also, you OBVIOUSLY do NOT WANT TO LEARN ABSOLUTELY ANY thing OTHER than what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

you have SHOWN and PROVED that you have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST AT ALL in LEARNING.

socrattus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:29 pm The shift to relativity
Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light,
which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 4:27 pm I cannot directly rag on that since the quote is an English translation of a 1912 paper in German, but it is wrong as stated.

You are right, we need to check the translator's qualifications.

socrattus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:15 pm

socrattus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:29 pm The shift to relativity
Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light,
which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 4:27 pm I cannot directly rag on that since the quote is an English translation of a 1912 paper in German, but it is wrong as stated.

You are right, we need to check the translator's qualifications.

Among other things.

But, OBVIOUSLY, that would take WAY TOO LONG.

And, considering the Fact that 'we' can just 'look at' what ACTUALLY IS, instead, "ourselves", which quickens the process up of FINDING and UNCOVERING what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth is to almost INSTANTANEOUSLY, then I suggest that you people just start 'LOOKING' FOR and BY "your" own 'selves', INSTEAD.

When ANY of you ACTUAL LOOK' do ANY of you 'see' 'dark energy', 'dark matter', or ANY thing between 'matter', itself. And this is AT the SMALLEST AND at the LARGEST of perspectives?

If no, then just ASSUMING that there is some physical thing 'there' is just a complete and utter 'WASTE OF TIME', as some say.

WHY even BEGIN TO ASSUME absolutely ANY thing AT ALL, here? Especially when what is ACTUALLY HERE can be 'LOOKED AT', and 'SEEN', AND DISCUSSED, INSTEAD.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:13 pm I think of all conceivable points in 3D space as either having an event or not

You seem to be using the term 'event' differently than I do. In physics, an event is a single physical (frame independent) point in spacetime, a location, whether something interesting occurs there or not. You seem to use the word as 'an occurrence', the interaction or mere passing of particles say.

A point in space has countless events (both definitions), for the reasons I gave in my prior post.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 8:13 pm How many ['quantum fields'] there?

A few dozen perhaps. I don't know. A book on the subject would give a better answer.
The Higgs field is just one example.

What separates each one from another one, exactly?

They're fields, each of which is by definition everywhere.

What exists IRREFUTABLY is 'matter'. This can be CLEARLY SEEN.

What can ALSO BE CLEARLY SEEN is that 'matter' is SEPARATED.
There, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT one single solitary solid piece of matter.
Therefore, there IS 'matter' and 'a distance between, and around, 'matter', itself. Again, this 'distance' is what is some times literally referred to as 'space', itself.

Both, 'space' AND 'matter' co-exist together. ALWAYS HAVE and ALWAYS WILL.

Now, 'space' is what ALLOWS 'matter' to move about absolutely FREELY, so that 'matter' can come together, to form 'objects', and to move apart, again as objects, to form 'the Universe'.

And, the 'energy' that is helping this ALL to ALWAYS CONTINUE comes from 'matter' being freely able to interact with 'itself' WITH and IN, or some times referred to as WITHIN, 'space', itself.

There is absolutely NOTHING COMPLEX NOR HARD here to comprehend and understand.

The words 'dark matter' and/or 'dark energy' are just referring to the literally non visible 'space', itself, where 'energy' ALSO exists.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:29 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:13 pm I think of all conceivable points in 3D space as either having an event or not

You seem to be using the term 'event' differently than I do. In physics, an event is a single physical (frame independent) point in spacetime, a location, whether something interesting occurs there or not.

But something is always occurring there or not (is my point).

That those on/offs, are what constitute the various properties of the fields.

Noax wrote:You seem to use the word as 'an occurrence', the interaction or mere passing of particles say.

No, for me the particles are not passing...they are being 'invoked' at the dimensional point in 3D space. Like a beautiful musical composition, the fluctuations of the various standard fields and their any or none interactions with each other, are popping in an out of existence per those points, in an eloquently exquisite "timed" dance.

Noax wrote:A point in space has countless events (both definitions), for the reasons I gave in my prior post.

OMG Yes. It blows my mind when scientist measure such things as a zeptosecond. The amount of events occurring ALL the time is mind boggling.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:29 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:13 pm I think of all conceivable points in 3D space as either having an event or not

You seem to be using the term 'event' differently than I do. In physics, an event is a single physical (frame independent) point in spacetime, a location, whether something interesting occurs there or not. You seem to use the word as 'an occurrence', the interaction or mere passing of particles say.

1. What is 'space'? What is 'time'? And, what is 'spacetime', exactly, to you?

2. What is the actual difference between 'something interesting occurring', and, 'the interaction or mere passing of particles', to you, exactly?

Some would say that the passing and/or interaction of particles (of obviously matter) is some thing interesting, in and of itself. After all it is the interaction and/or mere passing of 'matter', which has let to the WHOLE Universe being in the EXACT way, and shape, and form that It is RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. And some find being HERE-NOW VERY INTERESTING, to say the least.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:29 pm A point in space has countless events (both definitions), for the reasons I gave in my prior post.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 8:13 pm How many ['quantum fields'] there?

A few dozen perhaps. I don't know.

Thank you for being Honest.

It is a VERY RARE thing indeed within this forum.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:29 pm A book on the subject would give a better answer.

Maybe so, but then again maybe not.

Have you thought about LOOKING FOR 'the answer' BEFORE you start talking ABOUT 'them'?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:29 pm The Higgs field is just one example.

AGAIN, this is just AN ASSUMPTION, right?

And, do the words 'higgs field' relay an implied 'few dozen perhaps' to you, or just 'one'?

Also, what are 'fields', exactly, which you talk ABOUT, here? I notice you IGNORED these questions, COMPLETELY.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:29 pm

What separates each one from another one, exactly?

They're fields, each of which is by definition everywhere.

WHERE are you GETTING 'this definition' FROM, exactly?

And, LOOK AT the word 'higgs field'. It is ONLY one, obviously.

Human beings just add layer upon layer of UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPLEXITY, ONTO what is ESSENTIALLY SO BASIC and SO SIMPLE.

WHAT the Universe actually consists of, EXACTLY, and HOW the Universe actually works, EXACTLY, is, literally, ABSOLUTE SIMPLICITY in its MOST BEAUTIFUL FORM.

There is NO 'field', NO 'fields', NO 'dark matter', and NO 'dark energy'.

There is JUST One event HAPPENING and OCCURRING HERE, and NOW, and ALWAYS.

HOW this One event ALWAYS EXIST is JUST 'matter' interacting with itself, BECAUSE there is a distance, or 'space', invisible of matter, but of which exists energy, which 'allows' ALL-OF-THIS to HAPPEN, and OCCUR.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 4:27 pm

socrattus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:29 pm The shift to relativity
Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light,
which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

I cannot directly rag on that since the quote is an English translation of a 1912 paper in German, but it is wrong as stated.
It perhaps suggests either that all light moves in the same direction, or that the direction of motion of a given light pulse is frame independent, but both are incorrect. The speed of light is the invariant, not the velocity. This principle became apparent after the Michelson–Morley experiment failed to detect the aether, as has every experiment since, making it pretty weird that Cerveny insists that "the only thing that really, measurably exists is the aether".
Detection of it would constitute a local test of being stationary, which is exactly what Michelson–Morley was attempting to measure.

Guys, forget about some measurements and use common sense. Physical space (perfect vacuum) can be polarized. For example, the electric field in a vacuum decreases with distance from a point source and different forces act on a charged particle at different places. Something can be measurably different at different points of “empty” space. If there was nothing in it, it should be the same everywhere. So, if there was nothing in it, the expression “everywhere” doesn’t even make sense. Every point in physical space is somehow physically fixed, connected, there are certainly no coordinates floating there :) Each such “point” has, let’s say, a Planck dimension. There is/are no such thing(s) as “nothing”. Ps: excuse my poor English :(

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:42 pm

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:29 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:13 pm I think of all conceivable points in 3D space as either having an event or not

You seem to be using the term 'event' differently than I do. In physics, an event is a single physical (frame independent) point in spacetime, a location, whether something interesting occurs there or not.

But something is always occurring there or not (is my point).

And I asked you to PROVIDE EXAMPLES of HOW there could be some thing 'not occurring'.

I also POINTED OUT that your INABILITY TO PROVIDE ANY EXAMPLES AT ALL, will SHOW and PROVE that there is NO such thing as 'no event'.

What you are claiming here would be like claiming that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

And, because NO one could ALSO PROVIDE ANY EXAMPLE of ANY such thing, then this PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, that there is NO such thing as ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL. Just like there is NO such thing as 'ABSOLUTELY NO EVENT'.

There IS some thing, the Universe, just like there IS 'an event', the Universe in CONSTANT EVOLUTION.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:42 pm That those on/offs, are what constitute the various properties of the fields.

LOL
LOL
LOL

1. WHAT 'on/offs'?

you just CLAIMING that there 'are events'/'no events' does NOT mean that they ACTUALLY EXIST. And, you NOT being ABLE TO PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY EXAMPLES lays FURTHER PROOF that there is NO such thing as 'no events'.

2. 'WHAT properties''?

you just SAYING that there 'are properties' does NOT mean that there ACTUALLY IS. PROVIDE 'the definition' AND the 'example'. That is; if you REALLY DO WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, here.

3. 'WHAT fields'?

Again, just SAYING the word 'fields' does NOT mean that there are ACTUAL fields NOR does it mean that you KNOW what you are talking ABOUT, here. So, ONCE MORE, JUST PROVIDE examples AND definitions.

you human beings just RE-REPEATING what you have previously written and/or heard NEVER PROVES ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

In fact, and as I have been SHOWING and PROVING, here, when questioned and/or challenged you human beings ACTUALLY FALL COMPLETELY APART.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:42 pm

Noax wrote:You seem to use the word as 'an occurrence', the interaction or mere passing of particles say.

No, for me the particles are not passing...they are being 'invoked' at the dimensional point in 3D space.

1. BY WHO and/or WHAT, exactly?

2. Some thing can be so-called 'invoked' and STILL 'pass' something else.

3. What is some so-called 'dimensional point', in some so-called '3D space', exactly?

4. EXPLAIN what '3D space' is, exactly, to you.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:42 pm Like a beautiful musical composition, the fluctuations of the various standard fields and their any or none interactions with each other, are popping in an out of existence per those points, in an eloquently exquisite "timed" dance.

Talk about an example of 'LOSING THE PLOT'.

EVERY visible object of 'matter', itself, comes IN and OUT of Existence. Some just more quickly than others. Again, EVERY labeled or named thing begins to exist, exists, and then exits. Except, OF COURSE, for 'matter', 'space', and the Universe, themselves, (and 'energy' but this exists in a different way).

So, 'things' 'popping' in and out of Existence, Itself, is absolutely NOTHING unusual NOR abnormal. What you human beings, here, just do NOT YET RECOGNIZE and FULLY UNDERSTAND and KNOW is that ALL of 'those things' are just the One Thing, changing in way, shape, and/or form, and just APPEARING as though they are 'separated things'.

And, 'they' ONLY APPEAR as 'separated' and 'different' because this is HOW the human brain 'tried to' make sense of 'the world'/the Universe that 'it' has found 'itself' WITH-and-IN.

you older human beings LABEL and NAME the One Thing into as many smaller and diverse 'things' as can be possibly be done to HELP in you, human beings, in trying to WORK OUT, COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND, literally, ALL of 'this'.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:42 pm

Noax wrote:A point in space has countless events (both definitions), for the reasons I gave in my prior post.

When you say, 'A point in space', do you just mean 'a point' or 'a place' in the Universe, Itself?

What do you mean by 'countless events'? And, what are the 'both definitions'? Are 'they' the 'event' AND 'no event' definitions?

And, it does not matter one iota what 'reasons' you have given, ANYWHERE, if the 'very thing' that 'the reasons' you 'give for' is NOT even an ACTUAL THING, ITSELF.

'Trying to' CLAIM that 'the thing', itself, exists, for 'reasons' you have previously provided NEVER EVER MEANS that the 'very thing', itself, exists.

you have to, FIRST, PROVE IRREFUTABLY that 'the thing' EXISTS, BEFORE you can logically even try to EXPLAIN the 'reasons' WHY 'it' exists.

And, just 'trying to' CLAIM that an ASSUMED 'thing' in A 'theory' ALREADY EXITS, is BEYOND RIDICULOUS.

Now, if ANY one WANTS TO CLAIM that A 'field', here, EXISTS, then just START EXPLAIN what one is, EXACTLY, and then POINT OUT and SHOW, and PROVE, WHERE one, or many, ARE, EXACTLY.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:42 pm OMG Yes. It blows my mind when scientist measure such things as a zeptosecond. The amount of events occurring ALL the time is mind boggling.

WHAT?

AND, so WHERE, EXACTLY, are these, supposed and alleged, 'no events' HAPPENING, and OCCURRING, EXACTLY? ALSO, are the amount of 'no events', supposedly and allegedly, also occurring, ALL the time', also so-called 'mind boggling', to you, as well?

It is like you have gone down some weird entanglement of words and ideas in your HOPE of just getting your PRE-EXISTING BELIEF backed up and supported, SOMEHOW and/or SOMEWHAT.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:17 pm Every point in physical space is somehow physically fixed, connected, there are certainly no coordinates floating there Each such “point” has, let’s say, a Planck dimension. There is/are no such thing(s) as “nothing”

Yes, I agree with that within my theory on prev page. -- although you may disagree with this..

Each point on/off events occur. My belief is that something totally imperceptible to us, is operating from beneath the Planck scale, orchestrating the on/off events such that the fields behave the way they do - whether they interact with each other or not. We perceive in our reality 'particles' moving, but this is inaccurate. Nothing is moving, it's just the interaction points etc..

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:17 pm

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 4:27 pm

socrattus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:29 pm The shift to relativity
Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light,
which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

I cannot directly rag on that since the quote is an English translation of a 1912 paper in German, but it is wrong as stated.
It perhaps suggests either that all light moves in the same direction, or that the direction of motion of a given light pulse is frame independent, but both are incorrect. The speed of light is the invariant, not the velocity. This principle became apparent after the Michelson–Morley experiment failed to detect the aether, as has every experiment since, making it pretty weird that Cerveny insists that "the only thing that really, measurably exists is the aether".
Detection of it would constitute a local test of being stationary, which is exactly what Michelson–Morley was attempting to measure.

Guys, forget about some measurements and use common sense.

LOL

Each of these posters, here, are like; 'Forget about what you are claiming', just FOCUS on what I BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:17 pm Physical space (perfect vacuum) can be polarized.

LOL By 'definition', a so-called 'perfect vacuum' is a place, or space, with absolutely NOTHING physical within it. Yet here you are defining 'physical space' as being a 'perfect vacuum'.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:17 pm For example, the electric field in a vacuum decreases with distance from a point source and different forces act on a charged particle at different places.

HOW would ABSOLUTELY ANY KNOW 'this', when NO one has been ANYWHERE NEAR a 'vacuum'? Let alone the Fact that NO one could KNOW what happens within a 'vacuum', as to find out would be to INTERACT WITH 'it'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, MEANS that 'it' would NOT be a 'vacuum', ANYMORE.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:17 pm
Something can be measurably different at different points of “empty” space.

What do you MEAN by so-called 'empty space'? Especially considering you class 'physical space' as a 'perfect vacuum'.

I would have thought that a 'perfect vacuum' would be a lot closer to 'empty space', or vice versa, than 'physical space' was to either of these other terms of yours, here.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:17 pm If there was nothing in it,

But the words 'empty space' imply 'an area', within the Universe, within nothing in 'it'. So, what do you mean by, 'If there was nothing in it'?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:17 pm it should be the same everywhere.

Are you now trying to claim that if there was nothing in so-called 'empty space' then 'empty space' would be the same absolutely EVERYWHERE throughout the Universe?

If no, then what are you trying to claim, here, exactly?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:17 pm So, if there was nothing in it, the expression “everywhere” doesn’t even make sense.

Just about EVERY thing that you have said, here, is not making sense.

One minute you are talking about 'physical space' and next minute you are talking about 'empty space', and about IF 'empty space' had nothing within it, then 'empty space' WOULD BE EVERYWHERE.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:17 pm Every point in physical space is somehow physically fixed, connected, there are certainly no coordinates floating there Each such “point” has, let’s say, a Planck dimension. There is/are no such thing(s) as “nothing”. Ps: excuse my poor English

Ah, this might EXPLAIN what has been going on, here.

Now, if there is NO such thing as 'nothing', then what is in 'empty space', or a 'perfect vacuum', exactly?