Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relativity and the Problem of Space
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5145 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 1 of 3 (27559)
12-20-2002 11:45 PM


In an article by the same subject line as per above, Albert Einstein footnoted with respect to some kind of quotation of "directly experienced" the following "Kant's attempt to remove the embarrasement by denial of the objectivity of space can, however, hardly be taken seriously..."
I want to go on record from the thread's on Kant below in the IS IT SCIENCE TOPIC not only in the negative but postively to disagree with Albert on this point, for his use of the word "extension" earlier in the article which was published in 1954 from London in a book titled Relativity, the Special and General Theory: A Popular Exposition.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-22-2002 7:40 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 3 (27684)
12-22-2002 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
12-20-2002 11:45 PM


Noted, for the record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2002 11:45 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 12-28-2002 1:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5145 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 3 (28027)
12-28-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
12-22-2002 7:40 PM


It seems to be that the reason I was observing myself "disagree" with Einstein is that I was headed towards following up on a quote of Helmhotz that he gave in 1881 to Fellows of the Chemical Society of London"I am not sufficiently acquainted with chemistry to be confident that I have given the right interpretation whch Faraday himself would have given, if he had been acquainted with the law of chemical quantivalence. Without the the knowledge of this law I so not see how a consistent and comprehensive electrochemical theory could be established."
But as to what this means for cosmology I was just begining to write it out by explictly trying to keep to my own vision with Humphreys' cosmology.
My posts below the cosmology treads a largely with response the chemical and electric motions only and not to the space they move in except biological.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-22-2002 7:40 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024