No. I’m referring to the fact that all evidence points that the Universe has a singularity in the past (which you agree with, as you love the BGV theorem), and that black holes exist. Both cannot happen with Newton’s absolute space.
If you have a more rigid definition of Newton’s absolute space, i.e. not equivalent to absolute spacetime when combined with absolute time (not my preferred definition of Newton’s absolute space, but can be defended), then any experiment with gravitational time delay, such as the Pound-Rebka also counts as evidence against Newton’s absolute space.
Could it be that another way to express this is to say that there’s no way for Newtonian mechanics to describe the behavior of matter in the particular case where the Universe has a singularity in the past, and where black holes are present?
This is certainly true, but not all that is contained in the previous statement. More accurately, if Newtonian mechanics (especially Newtonian absolute space) is true, then we won’t have those singularities, or observational evidence of those singularities.
So what does the fact that Newtonian mechanics can’t describe a singularity, or black holes, tell us? Well, it tells us that its descriptive powers are limited. But It’s neither an observation, nor a logical argument for or against the coherence of an explanation, at least as far as I can tell. So how does that get us any closer to resolving the issue of whether the existence of space is absolute or relative?
Do you not read my answer to your question? There is no point in continuing if you don’t even read my posts.
It’s not just that Newtonian mechanics can’t describe singularities…
Edit: @Jim this is how ridiculous your argument sounds: Theory A: The Earth is a perfect sphere with no bumps or blemishes Observation: Mountains exist Your argument: This just means that Theory A cannot describe mountains. This is no observation or logical argument for or against Theory A.
OK. I guess we’re not on the same page somehow. Let me get to what I think is the heart of what you’re saying. Since Newtonian mechanics, which assumes absolute space, has been shown to be false, therefore it necessarily follows that absolute space is also false. Is that what you’re getting at?
No. I can put many auxiliary structure on Newtonian absolute space to produce many theories, not just Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian absolute space itself is incompatible with observation. What causes the discrepancy in the observations I am mentioning before is Newtonian absolute space itself, not any of the additional structures added to it by Newtonian mechanics.
Let me reiterate: It seems like you are trying to find a way out by blaming Newtonian mechanics instead of Newtonian absolute space. There is no way out. What is incompatible with observations is Newtonian absolute space!
Edit: @Jim maybe we’ll be on the same page if you actually read my posts fully… from your responses, it seems that you just read parts of my posts and disregard the rest.
So why is a singularity or a black hole incompatible with absolute space? It may be beyond the capacity of Newtonian mechanics to describe, but I don’t see why that makes the observations incompatible with absolute space. They both need space to exist, right?
To be honest I don’t think you have the background to understand why.
Here’s a cliffnotes version:
Newton’s absolute space requires a foliation of the ambient manifold at all points so that I can define a plane of simultaneity, i.e. a metaphysically privileged choice of 3 spatial and 1 time direction (i.e. a metaphysically privileged choice of a frame of reference). Timelike singularity = timelike paths are incomplete in finite proper time. After a finite time, it is impossible to make this choice.
Observational consequences: If Newton’s absolute space exists, then the big bang singularity and black holes do not.
Let me see if I’m following somewhat what you’re laying out here in the first two statements. Assuming absolute space limits a formulation of the mechanistic equations in such a manner that, due to what seem to be some sort of time restrictions of timelike singularities, it’s not possible to describe a black hole or a big bang singularity?
And the last statement seems to be saying, because it’s not possible to formulate such a description, based on the hypothesis of absolute space we would not expect to see black holes or a big bang singularity?
No, it’s not about being able or not able to formulate descriptions of the big bang singularity or black holes. Stop trying to find a way out by adding words like “mechanistic equations” to my answer so that you can attack it by saying that it’s only at the level of “mechanistic equations”.
What happens is exactly like this: Theory A: The Earth is a perfect sphere with no bumps of blemishes Observation: Mountains exist Consequence: Theory A is false
If you think my evidence is false, then you also think the above is false. You certainly think that the existence of mountains is evidence against the Earth being a perfect sphere do you?
I’m sorry. I’m not quite sure what the evidence you’re talking about is? Are you saying that black holes and the big bang singularity are evidence that absolute space does not exist?
Yes, particularly evidence for the bigbang singularity and evidence for the existence of black holes are evidence against Newton’s absolute space.The same way mountains are evidence for the Earth not being a perfect sphere, particularly evidence for mountains existing (e.g. photographs of mountain, the fact that it’s harder to walk across certain places) are evidence against the Earth not being a perfect sphere.
I can see how that conclusion can be said to follow logically from the evidence. But I don’t see how it follows logically that black holes or a big bang singularity are evidence that absolute space doesn’t exist?
I’m wondering if a possible disconnect in the conversation is concerning what I see as a distinction between Newton’s absolute space pertaining to mathematics expressed in terms of 3 dimensional Euclidean space, and that pertaining to ontology expressed in the idea of a space that exists independent of relative relationships to other material bodies.
The former would be used for descriptive purposes, the latter for explanatory purposes. Is it possible that we each have the distinction opposite to each other in mind, and are therefore just talking past each other? That’s how it appears to me, anyhow.
Jim, I told you over and over, no such confusion exist between explanation and description in this statement. 100 years of physicists are not dumb enough to get that wrong. I am just following this prescription that we agreed before
Now, on to this:
You can’t see it because you don’t know physics. To a physicist, it’s as logically clear as the mountains on Earth problem.
Is not even absolute space, but space substantivalism. Again you showed that you are very confused about what Newton’s absolute space actually is. This is why this conversation is not productive until you write down in rigorous, precise mathematical language what you actually mean by “absolute space”.
In fact, I think I will stop replying to your posts until you come up with a rigorous, precise meaning of what you mean by “absolute space”.
If you don’t have the knowledge to do it, then that’s too bad, I think my posts have convinced most readers that I am right and you are wrong (or at least very confused).
It’s OK if you don’t want to respond to this, but I’m going to try to re-articulate my position again. As I’ve said before, I don’t expect you to agree. And it’s possible that I am just confused.
But from what I’ve read, despite the brief period during the reign of verificationism/logical positivism where the issue of absolute space was considered to be nonsense, the ontology of space remains a hotly contested issue among philosophers of physics to this day, and by no means is considered to be settled in any way.
And the core issue, as I see it, is whether space is something that in some absolute way exists independent of material objects, or whether it is just something that exists in some relativistic way solely dependent upon such objects. (Edited.)
And the consensus among philosophers is that Newton’s rotating bucket argument is still a formidable argument in favor of absolute space/space-time. The main argument against it being the brute fact argument, which I myself don’t find very persuasive, and the impression I get is neither do a significant number of philosophers.
And in my opinion, it’s simply a mistake to try and conflate the issues between classical and relativistic descriptions with the the ontological issue. I don’t see how they have any relevance to discussions of ontology.
That relevance would need to be shown in some way for me to accept it as any kind of evidence. What is the norm for evidence regarding explanation is observation, and correspondence and coherence to experienced reality.
And regarding prediction, the question being addressed here is about the ontology of space. So in regards to the existence of absolute space, the prediction needs to flow from that. Does existence of absolute space predict the preclusion of the existence of black holes and a bb singularity? I don’t see how.
However, the prediction that’s been under discussion doesn’t seem to flow from the existence of absolute space, but rather from the expression of absolute space in the formulas of classical mechanics. That again seems to me a conflation of the issues.
In fact the prediction makes no sense in that we know that these things either do exist, or presumably would have had to exist, in space. And since what we’re asking is what is the nature of the space they exist in, it makes no sense to ask if they could exist in that same space they presently already exist in if it were shown to be absolute.
It would still be the same space. All that would change is our knowledge of its nature. So it seems to me the prediction itself, at best, just doesn’t flow from the explanation, or at worst, is just incoherent. (Edited.)
So it seems to me, at this point in the discussion, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. So unless you have anything further to add to the discussion, I’ll leave it at that, and say thanks again for your valuable input.