On Sep 20, 12:19*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
He [Einstein] was not speaking about an ether as a physical entity
that really exists in material form in a motionless, non-relativistic
setting that most of us find ourselves in (we are not photons). It is
an abstraction for us. Do abstractions exist? Yes. As physical
entities? No.

Would you please explain to all of us how gravity can
distort an abstraction? Good Grief!
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Good Grief indeed. You are reduced to playing word games. The physical
operant of gravitational force from an entity of mass is another
entity of mass or one with the some of the physical qualities of mass
such as light. Since the gravitational force between 2 or more
entities may affect the space between such entities, we can form the
abstraction which considers that gravitational force distorts space as
the primary operant of this force and its effects on mass and light
are secondary results of the distortion of space. In your posts you
have surprisingly chosen to view space as the latter (abstract view)
giving almost no consideration to the physical view where matter-to-
matter is the primary operant. I prefer the physical view because I
reference my thinking as an oberserver at rest. A big problem with
chosing the abstract view (matter-space operant) is that it depends
upon no future findings ever being discovered that would alter the
theory upon which it is based, But I agree, IF the General Relativity
theory is ever proven to be an endpoint upon which no additional
finding can ever be found, and you know this will never be the case,
then according to the 1920's abstract view, space itself must be *the*
ether for light (as least, as far as the "light" is concerned). This
non-material ether "with Physical qualities" as Einstein calls it, can
never be observed or measured because it is an abstraction to us at
rest. Your view can never be proven false until such time as the
general theory is modified which will not happen in our life time.
This puts you on safe ground in that you cannot lose the argument.
Neither can you win. I can see that you are about 75% there in
"getting" relativity...you can't get there with word games. I suggest
you confine your concepts of the physical world to 4 dimensions where
you, the observer are at rest. Everything you see in that setting is
your "physical" word". From there you can conceptualize the universe
as if your were an observer at relativistic speeds. Everything in that
world is an abstraction. Then consider that physical elements and
abstract elements of an observation can be true at the same time even
if they seem to contradict each other in one or the other setting. But
never mix up the two universes as you are doing right now. Finis.