Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"

Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:11 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There are literally hundreds of experiments that support and confirm SR,
and many of them refute Newtonian mechanics. Look in the FAQ for references.

This is not true. There are no experiments out there that completely
support SR.

You are wrong. Look it up. <shrug>


However, there are plenty of experiments out there which
agree with the Lorentz transform but not its immediate reciprocal form
which is also the Lorentz transform. To agree with SR, you need an
experiment that show both the Lorentz transform is true as well as its
reciprocal form. <shrug>

You clearly do not know how theories are tested in physics.


There are dozens of experiments that support and confirm GR, and most if
not all of them refute Newtonian mechanics. Look in the FAQ for references.

Most of all these experiments are faulty. For examples, [...]

Your first two "examples" are the earliest tests, which have since been repeated with vastly better resolutions and/or accuracy. Your statements about geodesics are complete and utter nonsense.


But ultimately the equations of motion come from the Einstein field
equation:

G = T G is the Einstein curvature tensor, and T is the
energy-momentum tensor; units are such that c=1
and 8*pi*k=1, k is Newton's gravitational constant.

The Einstein field equations only allow one to solve what the metric
is. These equations do not deal with the geodesics directly.

You CLEARLY do not understand this. For starters, the geodesic equation follows directly from the field equation, when applied to test particles (the only particles for which the geodesic equation is valid). In any case, the field equation determines BOTH the metric and the energy-momentum tensor, and the latter includes how all objects and fields in the manifold move and interact.


They are actually not difficult to solve if assuming a diagonal metric
in spherically symmetric coordinate system where the orbital motion is
confined to the equatorial plane.

As I said, "simple systems with lots of geometric symmetries". What you said is completely unrelated to the spring-mass system I was discussing -- it is NOWHERE CLOSE to "spherically symmetric", and quite clearly does not have a "diagonal metric" in any sensible coordinate system that includes the whole thing.


> [... further outrageous nonsense, such as claiming the Riemann
> tensor was "designed by Ricci"...]


Tom Roberts
.