In an article by the same subject line as per above, Albert Einstein footnoted with respect to some kind of quotation of "directly experienced" the following "Kant's attempt to remove the embarrasement by denial of the objectivity of space can, however, hardly be taken seriously..."
I want to go on record from the thread's on Kant below in the IS IT SCIENCE TOPIC not only in the negative but postively to disagree with Albert on this point, for his use of the word "extension" earlier in the article which was published in 1954 from London in a book titled Relativity, the Special and General Theory: A Popular Exposition.
It seems to be that the reason I was observing myself "disagree" with Einstein is that I was headed towards following up on a quote of Helmhotz that he gave in 1881 to Fellows of the Chemical Society of London"I am not sufficiently acquainted with chemistry to be confident that I have given the right interpretation whch Faraday himself would have given, if he had been acquainted with the law of chemical quantivalence. Without the the knowledge of this law I so not see how a consistent and comprehensive electrochemical theory could be established."
But as to what this means for cosmology I was just begining to write it out by explictly trying to keep to my own vision with Humphreys' cosmology.
My posts below the cosmology treads a largely with response the chemical and electric motions only and not to the space they move in except biological.