Sparky, Saul, Farsight,
I've never understood how time could be associated with space as an integral part. To me, it is not logical.
saul wrote:Can you find a way to define a base unit of time or space without reference to one another?
It is my understanding that "space-time" is a description of the observational experience of cosmic reality. The "space" part is rather obvious, being 3-dimensional Euclidean/Cartesian space. The "time" part involves the necessity to acknowledge that information about said 3-dimensional space can only be received at c, no faster and no slower. So that knowledge of the position of an object at the moment of observation carries with it an uncertainty since it is not the object that is being observed, but merely the light from the object. Therefore the position of the object in "space-time" is described as a "cone", since depending on its relative motion the object may actually be anywhere within the space-time cone at the instant that the information carrying light reaches the observer. As such it should be rather obvious that "space-time" does not actually exist for the universe at large. Space-time is only of interest to sentient observers. For example, any given electron is not attempting to make any prediction about the future position or motion of objects or any analysis of the past position or motion of objects. It reacts only to the momentum that it receives at any given instant. "Space-time" is the invention of and for observers. It is a mathematical tool not a description of reality.
Observers attempting to observe/measure/predict need to establish simultaneity to make true and accurate spatial and motional comparison between objects whilst taking account of the speed of light. That simultaneity cannot be established for separated objects, is entirely irrelevant to
those objects. Although we may say that time ticks by on a universal absolute basis, the objects themselves exist only in space, each in their own separate time frame that lacks any need or requirement for synchronisation or simultaneity comparison. "Space-time" and simultaneity are purely observational concerns. Both of Einstein's SR postulates are human observer centric.
Sparky, your intuitive doubts regarding the association of space with time are well placed.
Farsight wrote:....it's best to think of this as space rather than space-time though.
saul wrote:I am merely repeating what appears from my reading to be the purpose of introducing a space-time fluid.....
This space-time, I will use your terminology and call it "aether", is the only thing that exists. There is nothing else. All observed reality can be explained by differing states of this aether at different locations.
See above for my definition of "observational/mathematical space-time". The aether, on the other hand, refers to a physical property of space.
I think it is clear to everyone, that the "aether" is responsible is some way or other for gravity, electromagnetism and light. For some people the term "aether" carries a very specific meaning and I think it is important to be able to keep separate one's own specific ideas and also to think of the aethereal field in a more general sense. For example, I think the term "quantum vacuum" is equally valid, even though it might normally be associated to other less desirable baggage.
The idea that electrons and protons are lumps or clumps or swirls of aether is in some regard appealing. However, it seems clear enough that these objects exist and operate as distinct and "permanent". That electrons and protons might be aethereal constructions seems philosophically inevitable, but in my opinion, from an analytical standpoint, this theoretical appeal must give way to considering them as separate entities existing within the aethereal field.
saul wrote:Perhaps you are looking for a hybrid theory, one in which the electromagnetic aether is a different substance from massive particles which travel through it? Such ideas were voiced by physicists such as Maxwell, and mostly are incompatible with observations such as stellar aberration and the Michelson Morley experiment.
So yes, my analysis indicates that the universe is constructed from three different particles: electrons, protons, aether particles. It seems that your statement above contains within it some implied meaning or knowledge, which differs from my personal conceptual image. The "electromagnetic aether" seems to me to be a bold statement; what then of the gravitational aether?. After all, gravity is stronger and more pervasive than electromagnetism.
The MM experiment, if it gave any result at all, showed that there was no "light waving medium". This would only be of interest if light were a wave, if it were a wave in a medium, and if it were electromagnetic. Since it is none of those I see no particular interest in that experiment.
As for your mention of stellar aberration, I am at a loss to understand the relevance, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain further.
Sparky wrote:A purely kinetic medium that imparts energy that we describe as electrical.
Permission to plagiarise please. May I also point out that the word "electrical" might easily be replaced with the word "gravitational".
This has become a most interesting and stimulating discussion. I hope that you will all continue to contribute.