Re: The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity

Shubee wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:46:25 -0700:

On Apr 2, 6:42 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Shubee wrote on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:23:45 -0700:

On Apr 1, 8:03 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one
of many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental
basis.

Not only do relativists promote the geometric view of gravity with
religious enthusiasm, they are absolutely antagonistic to all other
logical interpretations.

Shubee

An example i know is the speed of gravity myth.

First, it can be proven that the retardation arises on GR e.g.

h_MUNU = 4G Int d^3x {S_MUNU(x t_ret) / r}

is not fundamental but retardation (t_ret) arises from the geometric
(local) approximation to gravitation.

That is, GR and its retarded interactions are just an approximated
view.

Second, so-called tests of GR can be matched also with theories of
instantaneous action at a distance without spacetime curvature: see,
for instance a first attempt on

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019

That work can be extended to include also *radiation*. Another common
myth by relativists is that radiation cannot be explained by action at
a distance theories and needs of retardation and fields.

Once i tried to explain some of those issues to certain academic
relativist now on this newsgroup. He completely misunderstood i said,
decided not to read references provided and started certain /ad
hominem/ attack against me (where in a very unfair way he even
attributed to me stuff i *never* said).

You cannot dialoge with that kind of people. Nobel Prize for physics
Max Planck coinned the phrase:

{BLOCKQUOTE
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Juan,

I don't have a good enough background to understand retardation
potentials from the field equations or the paper by Eugene Stefanovich
but I sure do love that statement by Max Planck. Assuming Planck is
right, then the only way to break the wheels off the curvature bandwagon
is to write on the fundamentals of relativistic non- instantaneous
action-at-a-distance interactions at the undergraduate level.

Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered by
particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

No strange that Nobel winners particle physicists as Weinberg and Feynman
wrote their own books on nongeometrical approach to gravity

http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Gravitation-Frontiers-Physics/
dp/0201627345

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Cosmology-Principles-Applications-
Relativity/dp/0471925675

Feynman book is still more nongeometrical. One of its reviewers says

{BLOCKQUOTE
This is a more fundamental approach than the usual differential geometric
framework and shows what the equivalence principle really means in terms
of fundamental symmetries.
}

Thus the problem is not with students, physicists usually liking non-
geometrical books but with general public, who has been misinformed by
many 'Hawkings' and 'Greenes':

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations_20.html

Another problem is media. This is part of a mail i received close a month
ago:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman wrote some very unflattering remarks about
relativists and their tactics. Yet the science media is too intimidated
by relativists to quote such remarks, even when they come from someone
with Feynman's prestige. Chris Hillman used to be [...] worse than Steve
Carlip or Tom Roberts. Whenever he was losing a logical argument, his
habit was to drop some undecipherable tensors on the hapless
correspondent as a pure intimidation tactic. You can imagine how media
people react to such things -- basically, with fear.
}

As Planck said, it seems that only time will correct that.

Do you
have any desire to do this?

Website

http://canonicalscience.org

and blog

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com

will contain viewpoints and micro-thoughts about why the geometric
formulation of gravity is not fundamental anymore and may be reemplazed
by a more general (and complex) formulation. Both sites will contain
adequate citation of academic literature on the topic of recent advances
in nongeometrical gravity.

Do you know of any presentation that
explains or simplifies Poincare's Lorentz invariant theory of gravity?

http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf

Sorry, I only know research literature.

But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity
    ... by particle physicists and astronomers. ... they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of relativists. ... Basically Carroll says that Weinberg does not know how science works! ... Can you quote any of Feynman's unflattering remarks about relativists? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Doubts about relativity dogmas
    ... Gravity as spacetime curvature. ... There are more advantages when avoiding this GR 'dogma': ... Carlip's (relativists) claims gravity travel to c is not correct. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Doubts about relativity dogmas
    ... quantum mechanics is a fault shared by both torsion and curvature based ... The alternative theories are *NOT* promoted. ... bitter cranks in an effort to tear down physicists and bring ... Self-proclaimed "relativists" can be found both here and in other ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Doubts about relativity dogmas
    ... quantum mechanics is a fault shared by both torsion and curvature based ... merit until someone proves otherwise. ... bitter cranks in an effort to tear down physicists and bring ... Self-proclaimed "relativists" can be found both here and in other ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: There is a name for what is wrong with Relativists.
    ... the physicists of today cannot be forgiven for being ... illogical framework. ... Relativists are dishonest and KNOW they are. ... between one way travel and two way travel, this has to be shown by ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)