Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined

[TomVF]: I was explaining that there is more than one physical
interpretation of GR.

Bilge]: No, there is not, tom. General relativity is a geometric
theory of spacetime - by design.

[TomVF]: [examples of more than one physical interpretation]

[Bilge]: As I've pointed out, general relativity is a geometric theory
by design. What precisely do you think the metric is for?

[TomVF]: I notice that your response ignores the point of the exchange.

[Bilge]: What you've noticed is that I have no intention of following one
of your irrelevant tangents.

Concession noted.

[TomVF]: Is it your habit to change the subject when someone counters a
claim you have made?

[Bilge]: You haven't countered anything.

Frustration noted.

[TomVF]: Specifically, are we now agreed that there is more than one
possible physical interpretation of GR, each having the same basic math?
Why or why not?

[Bilge]: No. The issue is whether or not your cartoon notion of general
relativity resembles general relativity. It does not.

New diversion noted.

[Bilge]: General relativity is not a classical force.

[TomVF]: When working in the astronomers' Euclidean 3-space, where the
observations are made and where GR has been tested, GR is a classical
force by definition of force: the time rate of change of (3-space)
momentum. Surely you are aware that space curvature is not what causes
basic Keplerian orbital motion! If not, see
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp and the
reference therein to MTW for a quick refresher. In fact, the lack of a
physical mechanism to initiate motion is one of the main reasons for
favoring alternatives over the geometric interpretation.

[Bilge]: So, is it your contention that the general theory of relativity
states that the earth is the true center of the universe and that the
universe is Euclidean?

[TomVF]: Again, you made an unsupported claim, I refuted it, and you your
respond with a change of subject. First, on the original point and in light
of my response, are we now agreed that, in 3-space, gravity is a classical
force? Why or why not?

[Bilge]:

Absence of response noted.

[TomVF]: You seem unfamiliar with GR equations of motion, the equations
for gravitational force that determine the principal orbital motions of
bodies in the real world astronomer's Euclidean 3-space. I referred to
these above as "translations from 4-D to 3-D".

[Bilge]: Do you disagree that the covariant derivative of a vector, D_a
V^i is given by, d_a V^i + C^i_ba V^b and that the curvature is given
by,
[D_a, D_b]V^i = R^i_jab V^j? If not, then your comment is nothing but
hot
air.

[TomVF]: Once yet again, you ignore my point and try to change the
subject to something completely irrelevant here. Are we agreed that the
GR equations of motion (as developed by Einstein, Infeld, Hoffman,
Roberston, and Noonan and described in MTW p. 1095) are expressions for
the force of gravity in the astronomer's Euclidean 3-space? And are we
agreed that these are the equations used by astronomers to compare
theoretical GR to real-world observations? Why or why not?

[Bilge]:

Absence of response noted.

[TomVF]: These equations of motion represent the field of modern
relativistic celestial mechanics. It would broaden your knowledge and
perspectives if you became familiar with its basics. "Adventures in
Celestial Mechanics" by Victor Szebehely (U. Texas Press, Austin, 1989)
is very readable by anyone familiar with GR ...

[Bilge]: I'd be happy to make a comparison to see which one of us is
more broadly versed in any or all aspects of physics. Personally, I
don't think you have the slightest idea what a field theory is,
classical or quantum. You simply use the words because they look nifty.

[TomVF]: I pointed you to a citation to help you fill in gaps in your
knowledge and understanding. Your response is again off-topic and a
change of subject. This is not a competition between the two of us, but
an attempt to develop a better understanding of nature for everyone. Your
participation in achieving that goal would be appreciated.

[Bilge]:

Absence of response, especially to last sentence, sadly noted.

[TomVF]: ... assuming of course that familiarity with 4-space does not
inhibit one from thinking of the world in everyday Euclidean 3-space
terms once again.

[Bilge]: Nothing inhibits from thinking in 3-d, but apparently something
inhibits you from recognizing the difference between a theory and a
particular approximation to a theory.

[TomVF]: Again, you missed or ignored a point in my message and changed
the subject. I repeat the relevant remark: "Yes, these equations of
motion are approximations, just as the trig equations we use in our
calculators and computers are approximations. Like them, the equations of
motion can be made as accurate as any particular problem demands by
expanding the series used to make the approximation. In practice they are
calculated to more precision than our ability to measure the
observational data for the problem in question. These arbitrarily
accurate approximations are the only means we have for verifying GR. If
you do not believe they are good enough, then you do not believe GR has
been verified against observation." Do you agree? Why or why not?

[Bilge]:

Absence of substantive responses to most points is most
regrettable. As to what "the issue" is, you were the one who jumped into
this thread by taking issue with several of my points. I explained and
defended those points. Now you insist on changing the subject. My views
cannot be that cartoonish if you cannot explain or defend any of your own
objections to them. -|Tom|-


Summary of discussion up to now:
** GR has more than one physical interpretation.
** Astronomers must translate solutions to GR field equations back to
3-space in order to compare the theory with observations made in the
astronomer's Euclidean 3-space.
** Even in a relativity context, gravity in 3-space is a classical force by
definition of "force".
** The GR equations of motion are equations for the force of gravity in
3-space, and utilization of these equations is the subject of the field of
celestial mechanics.
** While the equations of motion are only approximations, they can be
developed to arbitrarily high precision and are in any case the main aspect
of GR that has been tested against observations. Without them, we wouldn't
know that GR had any applicability to the real world.


Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on replacement astronomy
research at http://metaresearch.org



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
    ... possible physical interpretation of GR, each having the same basic math? ... basic Keplerian orbital motion! ... Absence of response noted. ... calculators and computers are approximations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity
    ... interpretation of GR, which has now been falsified in favor ... So in physics, mathematical theories definitely need ... Note that Le Sage gravitation ("pushing gravity") has ... is falsified -- curvature cannot initiate 3-space motion, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: News: Hiccups, hernias and flatulence some intelligent design.
    ... no other possible interpretation is considered. ... If one applies the idea of Newton's laws of motion to observations in nature, then Newton's laws of motion will appear to a valid explanation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
    ... possible physical interpretation of GR, each having the same basic math? ... equation relating proper time to coordinate time, ... mechanism to initiate motion is one of the main reasons for favoring ... Euclidean heliocentric or geocentric coordinate system even when relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum
    ... where he says "in the limit where h-bar is much smaller than the ... depending on the physical situation. ... Do you per chance refer to the equations of motion for the physical ... Each of these approximations is applicable ...
    (sci.physics.research)