Re: New version of a relativity FAQ

Tom Roberts wrote on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:18:52 +0200:

I don't have "geometrical views on gravitation", I have geometrical
views on GENERAL RELATIVITY.

My quote was precise. It is applicable each time you state that spacetime
is curved [unproven], that curvature was measured [untrue], that there is
no force of gravity [unreal], when you lie novices about the geometry on
fiber bundle formulation of quantum fields...

Because that theory is, in essence,
geometrical, regardless of whether or not there are other
interpretations of it.

Wow! A few months ago you refused to accept that in a discussion where
you promoted the geometrical view only.

Your discussions with tvf about this are also stored on the archives.

Probably. Almost certainly. Indeed, it seems likely that a full theory
of quantum gravity will abandon the whole notion of a continuous
manifold (certainly the current major efforts toward QG do that). The
geometry of GR is, of course, inherently based on an underlying
manifold.

The question is not if the classical geometry may be abandoned at quantum
level (yours is a triviality everyone knowns). My question was more deepd
and was that it *is* the emphasis on a classical geometric theory of
gravitation which has impeded the quantization during decades.

Classical electrodynamics is not geometrical and this is why can be
quantized.

ADDD gravitation is not geometrical and this is why can be quantized.

Field theory of gravity is not geometrical and this is why can be also
quantized.

You insist on a geometrical view of gravity but never solved its problems
and never provided a single experimental evidence about dynamical and
curved spacetimes.

After asking you for years to provide a single experiment verifying the
geometrical GR and disproving field or force formulations of gravity
without any success (you just avoid to reply this) I definitively
abandoned...

-------------

I see with interest after your unfair and clearly misguided posting about
f and F and about vdM/dt, you avoided to reply and comment on any of the
references I cited, references where the increase of mass is explained in
terms of a *generalized* real force.

I am not really convinced by those *relational* models [#] and indeed i
am using the SR kinetic energy with rest mass (i also remarked this
previously) in the PR formulation I use in the derivation of Chubikalo
and Smirnov-Rueda dualism.

But, of course, I would not say that (f = ma) is wrong. That was *your*
mistake as always traced to your generalized ignorance of topics beyond
some few textbooks.

[#] The possibility to explain the increase of relativistic mass via
Machian models is attractive, but i dislike others aspects of the
model (radiation, QFT generalization) strong enough.

--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org
.

Relevant Pages

  • Galathea conversation on emergent gravity
    ... "but just because many could understand does not mean many do understand because there are many other interesting things in this world there are many approaches to quantum gravity that explore higgs-like mechanisms" ... "the higgs mechanism has always been intimate ... and I have done so in an elementary way showing the connection/formal analogy to emergence in superfluid helium & in BCS superconductors. ... can always be interpreted as a lorentzian geometry ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Jack Sarfatti bio
    ... spin coefficients -- but not the tetrad. ... the higgs mechanism has always been intimate ... and it has been a regular source of quantum gravity speculation ... can always be interpreted as a lorentzian geometry ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
    ... "Gravity" is a physical phenomenon, while GR is a THEORY of how gravity behaves. ... abandoning geometry because seriously flawed. ... that spacetime is curved and gravity geometrical because light bending can be explained with the same precision using a non-geometrical theory of gravity. ... You MUST be more precise in distinguishing theories from phenomena, and one theory from another -- your usage of "spacetime" twice in this sentence uses the same word to refer to two VERY DIFFERENT entities. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the basis of relativity
    ... With regard to the theory of gravity as I described it. ... Take some solution to Einstein's equations, then perturb the geometry ... I see the space-time dimensions as simply the dimensions of a normal ... a firm foot in measureable reality. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the basis of relativity
    ... > With regard to the theory of gravity as I described it. ... > one should say gravity is indistinguishable from geometry. ... spacetime being an imaginary frame for solving physics problems, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)