poignant1

In my earlier post I made a wording mistake where I said, Replace or qualify the term "time-place combo" with "material thing on an apparent trajectory". Relativity isn't really for characterizing hypothetical intangible vantages, but only actual material 'landmarks', which I term "platforms" because they are places from which observations will be made (by machines, by molecules, by humans, etc.) Relativity explains reality. It isn't so much about fantasy!

That sounds correct, all that was stated in that post. Now I ask this out of idle curiosity only, because I've said that I already grok relativity fine. Gravitational fields do indeed exist?? It's surely just a wording choice, and not a snag for me either way. If there's no space-time stuff then there must be this "field" dynamic and its attendant action-at-a-distance -- a notion which steadfast relativists are often heard to deride. 'Care to comment?

That there says quite plenty, and serves to clinch the subject, verily.

I'll try. Man, in his infinite vanity, feels that there should be an absolute reality that he can correctly plumb, and that way he can enjoy a God's-Eye view of the Creation. But the fact is that there is no such static entity as the Universe-as-it-is-right-now. The unfolding of circumstances relies on causation and causation, like everything else, can travel from place to place at no more than the speed of light (it has been found). The sum total of causations converging on a particular time and place dictate what occurs there and then. Each time-place combo is therefore a unique station (or platform), and cannot be a peer or slave to any other/greater realm. Anyway, we are forced to concede that every conceivable such platform also rightly claims its own proprietary linear (regular) time flow and regular 3D rectilinear space. There are myriad individual platforms but no one God's-Eye view, so there can be no universal clock. It is sort of a function of perspective that vantages alien to one's own come across slightly askew as regards their dynamic. But all the formulations bear out and light illuminates everyone's little world just as magnificently as it illuminates our own. And the variances are just plain infinitesimal in all but the most absurdly bizarre circumstances, such as at relative speeds in excess of 500 million miles per hour. It's some teensy little trick that the Creator plays in order for all venues to be blessed with normalcy. The skew is hardly noticeable at all, and ignorance of it leads to no particular harm.

If ever one espoused the antithesis of objectivism, you just did when you said that "M-M and the Lorentz equations would suggest exactly that there IS an ether" because the given explanation doesn't sit well with you personally. I'll repeat that relativity sits just dandy with me and is entirely objective. I say that because I understand relativity at its core: Earth vicinity is not a privileged zone as once believed; but is only a peer to myriad (gazillions) of other conceivable vantage points. Despite what we or others might ascribe as absolute motion upon viewing a remote planet or craft, all observation stations are nevertheless blessed with normalcy of light signal behavior relative to their own vantage. That truth alone is quite an exhilarating emancipation IMHO. ---------------- Ironically, the word "objectivism" gets flagged by the spell-checker here.

Ahhh, you took courses; that would explain your confoundedness certainly. I can't say that I give much (credence) to the System, yeech. Too bad your investment. Alas, here's the skinny.

Don't worry Brian, you're still cool with me. Your spacetime diagram thing was dandy, to be sure! It's nit-picking perhaps, but this thing you implied about relativity somehow dictating maximums for your time-x-space product, or your time+space sum. Um, that seemed a gross departure from correct interpretation. Maybe I misunderstood your intent.

Now look who's misinterpreting Einstein's work.

Your link came out funny -- it should be THIS URL. IMHO, the problem with Theism is that folks don't realize that if there is an Almighty, The Creator, then He would in no way be biased toward coddling the human species. NO! He would be more interested in safeguarding this precious globe from scourges, demagogues, the ruthless, the filthy, like what humankind is now clearly become. A hundred species per week fall prey to our evil monopolizing ways. Now it's MAN'S TURN to perish. Alleluia! Amen.

Because the seemingly bizarre aberrations predicted under relativity can be measured just as well by machines as by humans. Don't let their persistent use of the term "observer" lead to a misconception about the concrete nature of relativistic skewing. There might seem to be mind-boggling variances at issue concerning length, mass, simultaneity and such; but the overall scenario is one of luscious placid stability. Beings that reside on very distant galaxies get to enjoy the very same normalcy that we do: where light travels predictably and uniformly in all directions, illuminating every slightest movement of anything that budges. Nothing can outrun light. Nothing can slam into you before you have the opportunity to see it coming, in other words. Not very objective maybe, but so very very just.