I am not sure what you question is. I absolutely agree that space and time have properties. The question is whether for instance time is dilated or this is a clock dilation.

Any electrical engineer would not rely on the clocks being accurate open loop. If that were the only way to correct for errors (relativistic or otherwise) then you would have to send a spaceship up to fix any clock problem.

The point made is that the error is additive over time, that does not make sense. All you need is a delta, so the errors do not add.

So far as YOU know, "only photons, electrons, and liquids exhibit the particle/wave diffraction behavior."

All wave phenomena, exhibit diffraction, as do all particles, which are waves as well. The sub-microscopically small wavelengths of particles make the diffraction effects negligible for most situations, which is why we observe classical Newtonian physics for macroscopic instances.

As to existence existing—of course existence exists. That's axiomatic. I offer (for fun, not as a proof of anything) a quote from the great science fiction author, Philip K. Dick:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

For some reason there are people that hate the idea of relativity and will pursue any course to challenge it. The article is correct in that continuous compensation for timing errors is required for the GPS system to maintain its accuracy. If you look at the compensation process you will find that many of the adjustments necessary are consistent with the influence of relativity however, there are residuals that are the result of other influences. Most of these are the consequence of inhomogenieties in the gravitational field of the earth and the presence of the moon and the sun. Because the GPS satellites never follow exactly the same gravitational geodesic path twice the system requires constant calibration if accuracy is to be preserved.
For the past several years I have been working on a project to create a refined model of the geodesic path followed by the Earth-Moon system as it orbits the Sun. This project employs raw GPS data and pulse time of arrival from a number of pulsars as critical data components. Part of this project is to continuously determine the location of the gravitational barycenter of the Earth-Moon system to an accuracy of about 2 x10^13. As The location of the barycenter is constantly changing it must be recomputed at regular intervals. Time of arrival of pulsar signals is measured with an accuracy on the order of 1x 10^14 based on an atomic frequency standard. While the purpose of GPS is primarily navigation and position measurement analysis of the raw data from the satellites provides information about the location of each satellite in geocentric coordinates. The effect of all of this is a data set with accuracy on the order of 4x 10^12 or better. When measurements with this degree of precision are made relativistic effects are observable and must be included in the analysis. However, there are other influences present that have unidentified sources. So far I can see gravitational profiles in the Earth's geodesic that are consistent with the location and mass of several major planets; Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and possibly Saturn. Relativistic compensation is a critical part of this process.

There’s a big difference between saying that space and time are relations among entities, and that space and time have no properties. Space has the property of extent and time has the property of duration. Both of these properties can be measured without applying them to one or more specific entities that exist within their framework. My question above still stands.

Synchronizing clocks to compensate for relativistic effects does not require relativity?

So perhaps the problem with understanding of quantum mechanics and astrophysics is because we can not truly sense or perceive items on these orders of magnitude, and are instead reduced to approximations via measurements and mathematical formulas. Thus we must not only question the answers, but the methods we are using to reach those answers. If that is the crux of the article, I now understand what it is after, even though I must question it's self-promotion.

Yes, whenever such apparent methodology is judged as such, we should "do the same.".

In my mind, one must always be mindful of the progression of knowledge. Knowledge begins via sensations/perceptions. Inexorably, through integration via the application of reason, it arises through conception and integration..

However, conceptions must be "confirmed" before further integration. Such confirmation can occur simply by direct sensory observation, or through rigorous application of reason to said observaton(s) (mathematics and the scientific method).

If said confirmation seems to occur but does not integrate into one's existing knowledge, then something is amiss. Either 1) the presumed knowledge is not sufficiently understood; 2) it is erroneous; 3) the "confirmation" is either 1) or 2) as well.

At the risk of boringly repeating myself: ALL knowledge is contextual. Reason must be Man's ONLY absolute.

The clocks do not need to be synchronized in absolute sense only in a relative sense - delta T. This does not require relativity.

Of course you can. Assume 2+2 is not 4 and then show it always leads to a contradiction.

hear hear

?????? Harriman article was coherent. If 50% of you comments were coherent it would be improvement - this is not one.

Carver Mead says you can either say light curves or you can say it slows down.

I don't have a problem with the application of the scientific method. What I have a problem with is the predisposition that the "correct" answers can only come when heavily steeped in philosophy. It seems to me to be the classic case of confirmation bias: when people go looking to prove one thing or the other instead of seeing where the data leads.

The apparent contradictions within quantum mechanics to me illustrates to me just how much further we have to go in understanding the universe. This article seems to try to push all that to the side and say, well, it can only make sense if if you look at if from my viewpoint. One is to go looking for the answers that support the ideology, the other is to alter one's ideology via conclusions which match the data. The global warming apologists use exactly the same methodology and they are quickly criticized for such a tack. Should we not do the same here?

Behavior is observable, testable, and analyzable. It is from these observations, tests, and analysis that we can make a conjecture about the underlying mechanism responsible for that behavior. It is a bit like a box whose surface is observable but whose contents are hidden from view. The contents of the box are responsible for what we see on the surface and by testing what we can see we can draw various conclusions about those contents. However, if we cannot open the box the true mechanism will remain unknown. Einstein may have opened the box a bit and peeked inside. The hypergeometry of General Relativity may well be part of the underlying mechanism of gravitation but these additional dimensions have never been observed, only inferred. It may be that what something is is the sum totality of all of its observable properties. Does anyone know how to prove that?

A wave within a particle?
Particles traveling in waves?
Wasn't there a time when scientists were calling it "wavicles?"

Evolution is not just "Darwinian evolution." Everything adapts or dies. That adaptation is complex. We now have "epigenetics" to explain some inherited traits. Apparently, Lamarck was not entirely wrong, at least in his approach. He was wrong about the cause of the giraffe's long neck. It remains, however, that some acquired characteristics are inherited.

It is also true that the fossil evidence shows sudden changes, not gradual "evolution."

I grant that after a few tens of thousands of years of keeping to their own kind, animals of common ancestry become distinct gene pools that we call "species." But, even so, fertile hybrids are known across many "species."

I just read Origin of Species, as much as I could stand. It is a shallow book with an easy thesis. Not much is there to argue about. But it does not lead to much new knowledge, either.

I agree that bad philosophy is not necessitated by physics. It is not required by bad sociology, either. Harriman substitutes ideology for facts. If he wanted to argue against Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy he should have just done that.

It is not clear that the synecdoche of "physics" believes this or that. In fact, as a physicist himself, and as an Objectivist, Harriman could just as easily have said that "physics believes that entities have identities."

A free on-line book containing classical alternatives to modern physics theory.

You were quoting Heisenberg? I am not surprised. As I said, even Feynman's philosophy was flawed.

+1 Dale. You agree that particles have a wave-like nature. But our common understanding of a "wave" is that it is something that disturbs a field of particles. What is the "stuff" of the electron that is being disturbed by the "wave" "inside" it?

You do not understand modulo arithmetic. We agree that 8 + 5 = 13. So, if it is 8:00 AM now, and we agree to meet in 5 hours, when do we get together? You might say 1:00 PM (8 + 5 = 1), but I would say 1300 hours 8 + 5 = 13. Our common clocks are modulo 12. So-called "military time" is modulo 24.

If we agree to meet in 17 hours, then we get together at 1:00 AM tomorrow. 8 + 17 = 1(mod 24) = 1(mod 12).

Your computer communications are secure (such as they are) because of an application of modulo arithmetic with very large prime numbers.

Epistemology is required because our abstract thinking is not automatically valid. Especially when dealing with complex phenomena it is necessary to know how to think rationally with high level abstractions. When it is being 'explained' by those with flawed epistemology it is even more difficult because we have to sort out errors in presentation along with the inherent difficulties.

He is saying that space and time are themselves relations among entities. Space cannot be curved; the spatial aspects of entities may be curved. But the equations of 'curvature' in space-time are a higher level abstraction than properties of a single entity. The geodedics (analogous to great circles on a sphere) are trajectories of shortest travel by light, which is not in a straight line because the travel of light is affected physically by mass, not just a geometrical straight line. It means that the physics is determined by physics, not geometry alone, but geometrical concepts are used to describe it.

We're not amused.