From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Nicolaas Vroom  wrote:   
      
   > Op woensdag 27 oktober 2021 om 09:16:18 UTC+2 schreef J. J. Lodder:   
   > > Jos Bergervoet  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > He didn't imply that everything therefore has to be as we   
   > > > currently think it is. So what would it prove here?   
   > > There is nothing to prove, or that can be proven.   
   > Unimportant.   
   >   
   > > We seem to live in a universe that is ruled by law,   
   > > rather than a lawless or a chaotic one.   
   > We are part of world that is constantly changing.   
   > This world can be divided into parts that behave more or less identical.   
   > For example 'everywhere' in the univerese are galaxies. [2]   
      
   Perhaps, but physics deals with the things that are not changing, better   
   known as 'the laws of physics'. (and their consequences) Astronomers,   
   looking back in time, can see that the laws of physics have not changed.   
   (in any way that they can detect)   
      
   > > Why this is the case is, as Einstein said, a complete mystery.   
   > Why this is the case nobody knows. It is a 'fact' based on observations.   
   >   
   > > > > That's easy. Our present theories say that we live in a spacetime   
   > > > > in which space and time are the same thing. [1]   
   > > > > [1] This follows from the fact that we can eliminate c completely   
   > > > > from all laws of physics by means of a suitable choice of units.   
   >   
   > [1] is in conflict with [2] above.   
   >   
   > The problem with spacetime is that we define a line segment which   
   > connects two events t1 and t2.   
   > This line segment defines the start and end point of a light signal.   
   > The problem is that line segment c*dt does not physical exist.   
   > The main problem is an unambigous definition of the points x1,y1,z1,t1   
   > and x2,y2,z2,t2 of the two events in space.   
   > That means an event in our Galaxy and in Andromeda Galaxy.   
   > That means you need a clear definition how these events are measured.   
   >   
   > This problem would be simpler if one reference frame and one clock is used.   
   >   
   > Spacetime is in fact a mathematical approach. To set c to 1 (and to make   
   > it a physical constant) does not 'solve' the issues involved.   
      
   Precisely the point of Kant. There is nothing to 'solve'. Mathematics   
   must come before all physical theory. Without a well-understood   
   mathematical framework you can't even begin measuring things. (beyond   
   the most naive level) This still holds, despite the mathematical   
   framework having been changed from Euclidean geometry to relativistic   
   Riemannian geometry,   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)