[Physics] About "logical errors"

[Doug Marett]

Tom,

   Really, your going to insult Tesla, such sacrilege : ) Tesla's point is
perfectly valid; space, emptiness, nothingness, these are all words to
describe "a lack of properties", the only attribute of the words "empty
space" by definition is that it has no properties (and that is without even
considering a 4th dimension of time) if language and words are to have any
meaning, i.e. the "properties of empty space" is an oxymoron. All Tesla is
pointing out is the literal contradiction in terms; as soon as you say that
empty space has properties, like permittivity and permeability, then it is
no longer "nothing", it is now "something". Modern physics contains many
such contradictions in terms, and these should be cause for concern,
because besides everything else that is wrong with it, it is a misuse of
language.

Doug

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Thomas Goodey <thomas at flyingkettle.com>
wrote:

> On 3 Nov 2016 at 12:00, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>
> > Let me just quote Nikola Tesla... This logically
> > thinking realist already wiped the floor with the theory
> > of relativity in 1932 and thus proved for the umpteenth
> > time to be far ahead of his time:
>
> No, he didn't. He proved his total ignorance of the
> fundamental elements of the subject.
>
> > "It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of
> > space supposed to exist according to the teachings of
> > relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I
> > hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that
> > it can have no properties.
>
> He had made up his mind already, a priori without
> considering any facts.
>
> > It might as well be said that God
> > has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these
> > are of our own making.
>
> This is religious talk, and sounds like some type of
> Catholic hairsplitting. What is the difference between
> "properties" and "attributes"? Scientifically, we just talk
> about what structural regularities can be identified in
> nature.
>
> > To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes
> > curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act
> > upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a
> > view."
>
> But actually it is the fact. Eddington proved that with the
> eclipse observation. Of course it depends upon what you
> mean by "nothing", which depends upon what you mean by
> "thing".
>
> > Isn't it just beautiful how Tesla makes perfectly clear that
> > the Emperor of modern physics has no clothes with simple
> > logic?
>
> No, it was very stupid, because he opened his mouth in
> total ignorance.
>
> > Think about it. Space is literally no thing, nothing. It is
> > the emptiness, the void, wherein physical stuff exists, but
> > space in and of itself is not part of anything physical.
>
> What do you mean by "physical" here - it's not clearly
> defined?
>
> > And because space is
> > not physical at all, it can have no physical properties.
>
> But it has metric properties. That is the whole point of
> space. (Let's leave time out of it for simplicity; we won't
> speak of space-time although really we should.) The entire
> idea of space is that it serves as a foundation for
> measurement of distances between points (events). Whatever
> space "is" is not to the point. Read your Korzybski!
>
> Tesla seems to have thought that, a priori, the metric
> properties of space should be Euclidean. Actually this is
> an odd choice, because the group structure of a Euclidean
> space is quite complex. A Euclidean space is also infinite,
> which might be thought to be something of a stumbling-block
> to understanding. Still, somehow, people appear to think it
> is easy to visualize (which of course is irrelevant).
>
> But actually - as shown eighty years before by Riemann et
> al. - there are many alternatives. Clearly Tesla knew no
> more of that mathematics than my cat knows of
> electrodynamics. Which of those alternatives is actually
> realized in any spatial region is not a matter of
> bullshitting but a matter of observation or even experiment
> (as Gauss realized very well).
>
> For example, one way in which such differences are
> manifested is in the proportion of the volume of a sphere
> to its area times its radius. In Euclidean space this is
> always 4/3 pi r^3 to 4 pi r^3, i.e. 1/3. But in spaces of
> other types this ratio, while being 1/3 for very small
> spheres, changes as the sphere becomes bigger, to be either
> greater or less than 1/3. It is not something to be
> pontificated about without supporting evidence - you have
> to look and see.
>
> > Saying that space becomes curved by large bodies is the same
> > as saying that a street map becomes curved because the
> > cities and villages that are printed on it are so heavy.
>
> But, in the case of space, this is the actual fact, as
> determined by observation. Therefore all Tesla's polemics
> may safely be ignored.
>
> Thomas Goodey
> ******************
>
> But remember, please, the rules by
> which we live.
> We are not built to comprehend a
> lie.
> We can neither love, nor pity, nor
> forgive.
> If you make a slip in handling us you
> die.
>
> Rudyard Kipling, 'Secret of the
> Machines'
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161104/abc2fd50/attachment.html>