Originally posted by Eh
For example, when asked for an explanation for the Einstein equation, you replied that is was "It is the fudging of the classical concept of time to mathematically retro-fit the null-results of the M&M experiment."
Not knowing the actual equation I gave a description of what relativity theory actually is from my outside pov.
For example, GR does not say space is nothingness
Einstein said that his "curved space" was meaningless without the conceprt of the ether and that the M&M experiments simply proved that the ether was dynamic and not classically solid.
The modern conception of the "quantum vacuum" is that it is made out of energy or vacuum fluctuations, both of which are abstractions for properties that the standard model can not causally explain. An abstraction is not a substance thus it is equivalent to nothingness. That was my point. To say that space is curved it must be made out of a substance, as Einstein had intuited.
Energy is not a substance and the Standard Model has no clue what energy actually is. Its definition is simply that energy is the ability to do work. So space is composed of the ability to do work? Come on, we humans can do better than that!
, and it does not say locally bound objects (such as galaxies) will expand along with the flat space in between.
Right, this was my point. To say that space arbitrarily expands here but not there is to selectively use the definition of space to fit whatever they want. If the fabric of space-time is expanding then it is expanding and all objects embedded in it would expand with it.
As well, QM does not claim the vacuum has zero energy
I never said that it did. I said that one modern quantitative conception is that it is a "zero-energy superfluid".
Take for instance this quote from G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet” .
“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum.
“Among the existing condensed matter systems, the particular quantum liquid—superfluid 3He-A—most closely resembles the quantum vacuum of the Standard Model. This is the collection of 3He atoms condensed into the liquid state like water. But as distinct from water, the behavior of this liquid is determined by the quantum mechanical zero-point motion of atoms. Due to the large amplitude of this motion the liquid does not solidify even at zero temperature.”
, or that particles are mere points floating in a void (they are also waves)
Particles and waves existing paradoxically in a void which somehow (mathematically) can fluctuate. I never denied the wave-aspect to the point-particles.
, nor even that the value of experimental evidence is to be discarded for a theory of spacetime.
I never said that it did. I said that experiential understanding (common sense or causality) must be abandoned in order to believe in it.
In fact, the opposite is true, as without experimental success, no one would actually believe it to be true.
Exactly, but this experimental "success" can be interpreted in many ways from many different theoretical schemes. You know of ONE model and I know of at least two.
How would you know what model I subscribe to?
It is quite obvious. If I am mis-representing you please correct me.
My only gripe with your posts have been your blatent misrepresentations of the current theories.
No. You simply don't see how they can make sense, but this is because you are seeing them from within the standard paradigm in which they simply do not make sense.
I realize that current theories are only approximations to the complete description of nature, and don't hold to any model like one would to a philosophical or religious position.
Ok, then try and have an open mind please and we can discuss this in a civil manner.
That is where you're confused. It has nothing to do with the alternatives - you are either misrepresenting a theory outright, or asking a question (explained by the theory) that displays that you haven't studied it. As I said before, it's like trying to think outside the box without actually knowing what the box is. [/B]
It simply looks to you that I don't understand the box because of the VAST difference between the interpretive paradigms.
Again you have failed to prove that i don't know the theories that i am talking about.
