Pulled over from a thread in philosophy, where this is OT

i don't disagree with relativity. I disagree with the accidental interpretation in its explanation that fit with regards to speaking of time as an entity based on an inappropriate dismissal of space as having meaning.

...

I don't want to digress into this particular example as I only raised it with respect to the topic. But for extension on the example for which you accept no meaning to space as it was understood, then I'll use an example which I am presently discussing with other friends elsewhere.

In the following diagram, I define a logical "universal" as the rectangles there. I define both of these as "spaces" of which I interpret as "ether" as what was initially questioned in the past. Matter will be what is in black and if or where there is no matter, it is the background. I opt for the left version to illustrate what I understand as matter and why it would necessitate a real meaning to space as it contrasts what matter can mean. On the right is what I interpret is how you would require thinking if space has no real meaning in kind to the ether concept. You will no doubt disagree to my understanding of ether but I assure you this must be the correct interpretation as it is the only rationale for why Einstein would opt to interpret time as an essence that changes and not matter.

2015-10-10_062417.png

How do you interpret this or why do you likely disagree?

I disagree that Einstein though time was a substance or essence. He held that because c must be invariant for E&M to work, if one applies that concept to a kinematic system, one finds that time and distance have to be frame dependent.

The ether was a purported medium that was the preferred reference frame. That defined where the laws of physics held, and was the frame from which you would e.g. measure the speed of light. But nobody has been able to measure our speed with respect to the ether. Or that any particular reference frame is the one where the laws work.

I can't make heads or tails of the diagrams. They appear to be based on a misinterpretation of relativity.

The other point is that there was NEVER any evidence for the aether. It was just a "common sense" assumption. An like many such assumptions, it turned out to be wrong, or rather, unnecessary.