From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/14/2025 06:52 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/13/2025 02:26 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Ross Finlayson amok-crossposted and full-quoted:

[...] Einstein very well does introduce these terms
"spacial" and "spatial" as at once distinct and indistinct,

Nonsense. You are hallucinating.

I assure you that anyone can get a copy of "Out of My Later
Years", author one "Albert Einstein", and confirm this is so.

This book can be borrowed for free from the Internet Archive, which I have >> just done:

<https://archive.org/details/outofmylateryear0000eins/>

In it, the word "spatial" occurs 4 times as does the word "spacial". There >> is no indication that Einstein means different things by those: they are
both used to refer to 3-dimensional space, and Einstein never explains the >> difference.

"Out of My Later Years" is actually a collection of previous writings which >> appears to be the explanation for the different spelling:

The word "spatial" only occurs on the pages 42, 45, 58, and 101. These
contain texts from "The Theory of Relativity (1949)" (pp. 41-48), and "What >> is the Theory of Relativity? (1919)" (54-58).

The word "spacial" only occurs on the pages 68, 76, and 79. These contain >> texts from "Physics and Relativity (1936)" (pp. 59-97).

Given the years of original publication, it is not clear how the different >> spellings arose. However, Occam's razor suggests that, since "spacial" is, >> according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, merely a "less common variant" of >> "spatial", this was merely the preference of the respective translator or
editor, and has no deeper meaning:

<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spacial>

Also in "Sidelights in Relativity", which like "Out of My
Later Years" has the benefits of experience, Einstein
says so that the aether is so.

A title "Sidelights in Relativity" is not contained in "Out of My Later Years".

Also, the correct title is "Sidelights _on_ Relativity", but that is also
not contained in "Out of My Later Years". It is a book of its own instead: >>
In "Sidelights on Relativity", Einstein gives a historical account which
includes a description of (a)ether theories. If you are saying that
"Einstein says so that the aether is so", then you should say what you mean >> by "so", and cite the exact passage where you think that Einstein claims
that it *exists* (or "is so") instead of just describing what *had been*
thought.

<https://archive.org/search?query=sidelights+on+relativity>

<https://archive.org/details/sidelightsonrela00einsuoft/sidelightsonrela00einsuoft/page/6/mode/2up>

Anyways I'd just care to assure you and other readers
that Einstein has written it like so.

But apparently there is no deeper meaning to it, contrary to your claim.

Thanks for reading. Now, one may find that "spacial" and "spatial"
are interspersed in the text, yet most distinctly, each is introduced
with separate attachments to SR and GR. I.e., they are distinct,
being given different definitions, that being enough description of
their differences, that, indeed, Einstein "doesn't say" why there are different definitions of these various terms, and leaves it to
the reader as rather an exercise.

Cite and quote the evidence.

About Einstein and aether theories, also consider Einstein and
Infeld, since in Einstein and Infeld, is also entertained what
"must be" aether theories, that besides whether Einstein's
"total field theory" must be an aether theory.

Cite and quote the evidence.

So, since different attachments are given to the definitions
of "spacial" and "spatial", they are _not_ the same terms,
and more than merely "uncommon spellings".

Cite and quote the evidence.

Now, contrary to theories where SR is given then GR derived,
or "SR-ians", in "Out of My Later Years", clearly Einstein
defines GR first then SR is derived.

Utter nonsense. As I just told you, "Out of My Later Years"
is a collection of *previous* writings.

Thanks for reading, and I'm glad you did, since now you can
confirm for yourself that the definitions given for "spacial"
and "spatial" are distinct, about Einstein about aether and
a clock-hypothesis, and the centrally-symmetric after the
un-linear, and Einstein's "second-most famous mass-energy
equation: that nobody knows".

Nonsense.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 12/17/2025 09:52 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/14/2025 06:52 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/13/2025 02:26 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Ross Finlayson amok-crossposted and full-quoted:

[...] Einstein very well does introduce these terms
"spacial" and "spatial" as at once distinct and indistinct,

Nonsense. You are hallucinating.

I assure you that anyone can get a copy of "Out of My Later
Years", author one "Albert Einstein", and confirm this is so.

This book can be borrowed for free from the Internet Archive, which I have >>> just done:

<https://archive.org/details/outofmylateryear0000eins/>

In it, the word "spatial" occurs 4 times as does the word "spacial". There >>> is no indication that Einstein means different things by those: they are >>> both used to refer to 3-dimensional space, and Einstein never explains the >>> difference.

"Out of My Later Years" is actually a collection of previous writings which >>> appears to be the explanation for the different spelling:

The word "spatial" only occurs on the pages 42, 45, 58, and 101. These
contain texts from "The Theory of Relativity (1949)" (pp. 41-48), and "What >>> is the Theory of Relativity? (1919)" (54-58).

The word "spacial" only occurs on the pages 68, 76, and 79. These contain >>> texts from "Physics and Relativity (1936)" (pp. 59-97).

Given the years of original publication, it is not clear how the different >>> spellings arose. However, Occam's razor suggests that, since "spacial" is, >>> according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, merely a "less common variant" of
"spatial", this was merely the preference of the respective translator or >>> editor, and has no deeper meaning:

<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spacial>

Also in "Sidelights in Relativity", which like "Out of My
Later Years" has the benefits of experience, Einstein
says so that the aether is so.

A title "Sidelights in Relativity" is not contained in "Out of My Later Years".

Also, the correct title is "Sidelights _on_ Relativity", but that is also >>> not contained in "Out of My Later Years". It is a book of its own instead: >>>
In "Sidelights on Relativity", Einstein gives a historical account which >>> includes a description of (a)ether theories. If you are saying that
"Einstein says so that the aether is so", then you should say what you mean >>> by "so", and cite the exact passage where you think that Einstein claims >>> that it *exists* (or "is so") instead of just describing what *had been* >>> thought.

<https://archive.org/search?query=sidelights+on+relativity>

<https://archive.org/details/sidelightsonrela00einsuoft/sidelightsonrela00einsuoft/page/6/mode/2up>

Anyways I'd just care to assure you and other readers
that Einstein has written it like so.

But apparently there is no deeper meaning to it, contrary to your claim.

Thanks for reading. Now, one may find that "spacial" and "spatial"
are interspersed in the text, yet most distinctly, each is introduced
with separate attachments to SR and GR. I.e., they are distinct,
being given different definitions, that being enough description of
their differences, that, indeed, Einstein "doesn't say" why there are
different definitions of these various terms, and leaves it to
the reader as rather an exercise.

Cite and quote the evidence.

About Einstein and aether theories, also consider Einstein and
Infeld, since in Einstein and Infeld, is also entertained what
"must be" aether theories, that besides whether Einstein's
"total field theory" must be an aether theory.

Cite and quote the evidence.

So, since different attachments are given to the definitions
of "spacial" and "spatial", they are _not_ the same terms,
and more than merely "uncommon spellings".

Cite and quote the evidence.

Now, contrary to theories where SR is given then GR derived,
or "SR-ians", in "Out of My Later Years", clearly Einstein
defines GR first then SR is derived.

Utter nonsense. As I just told you, "Out of My Later Years"
is a collection of *previous* writings.

Thanks for reading, and I'm glad you did, since now you can
confirm for yourself that the definitions given for "spacial"
and "spatial" are distinct, about Einstein about aether and
a clock-hypothesis, and the centrally-symmetric after the
un-linear, and Einstein's "second-most famous mass-energy
equation: that nobody knows".

Nonsense.

Consider it done, it's the surrounds of those mentions you mentioned.

Thanks again for reading, I think that at least about these terms,
they may make a lot more sense now than as from the first reading.

My copy is around here somewhere, I'll dig it up at some point,
though what I'll mention you may do is consider these audio
essays "Reading from Einstein: Out of My Later Years", a
series of audio essays, where I read the relevant material.

https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Ross Finlayson wrote:

Consider it done, it's the surrounds of those mentions you mentioned.

Thanks again for reading, I think that at least about these terms,
they may make a lot more sense now than as from the first reading.

WTF do you mean by this?

My copy is around here somewhere, I'll dig it up at some point, [...]

IOW: You cannot substantiate your outlandish claims. I rest my case.

[YouTube link]

No, thanks.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 12/17/2025 07:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

Consider it done, it's the surrounds of those mentions you mentioned.

Thanks again for reading, I think that at least about these terms,
they may make a lot more sense now than as from the first reading.

WTF do you mean by this?

My copy is around here somewhere, I'll dig it up at some point, [...]

IOW: You cannot substantiate your outlandish claims. I rest my case.

[YouTube link]

No, thanks.

No, your claim is untrue, "spacial" and "spatial" are given different definitions as I've reflected them, so, I guess you're just hostile
to the idea at all of distinguishing "space", in terms, at all -
which Einstein does distinguishing SR and that "SR is local"
from GR and that "GR is total".

So, "WTF I mean by that", was that other readers here have already
noted and distinguished these differences, where otherwise it may have
been discarded by default, as it's readily available the material,
this source material from Einstein, what in more naive accounts
makes for "point-particles' degenerate-durations' lost-locality".


Now, you still have 1/2/3 as falsifying the usual account of the
theory like a typical SR-ian, or rather, science does, according
to the data.


Of, course, it's a continuum mechanics, and, it's a causal continuum.


Then, in that Reading from Einstein, I had already read that book
rather thoroughly once before and with already notions like the rest-exchange-momentum and light-speed-rest-frame, which are simply
ways of looking at the usual definitions the same terms the other
way around, so, "spacial" and "spatial" really stuck out as different.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2