Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: "Pmb" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:14:37 -0400
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.06.26.12.29.10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:22:25 +0200:
Pmb wrote:
But Einstein *did* put it into writing in a letter to Max Abraham:------------------------------
I do not agree with the idea that general theory relativity is
geometerizing Physics or the gravitational field. The concepts of
Physics have always been geometrical concepts and I cannot see why the
gik field would be called more geometrical than f.i. the
electro-magnetic field or the distance between bodies in Newtonian
Mechanics. The notion probably comes from the fact that the
mathematical origin of the is the Gaussian-Riemann theory of the
metrical continuum which we are wont to look at as part of a geometry.
I am convinced, however, that the distinction between geometrical and
other kinds of fields is not logically founded. - Albert Einstein to
Lincoln Barnett, June 19, 1948
------------------------------
I remark that today is 2008, not 1948.
This is a good example of why I don't read/pay attention to Tom's comments.
If 2+2 = 4 in 1948 then just because its 2008 there is no reason to suspect
that 2+2 does not equal 4. In this case Einstein's arguement is far from
being time dependant since none of the material in his arguement would hinge
on such arguements
Effectively! And the idea that gravity is special, just geometry, and a
interaction completely different from electromagnetism and the rest of
forces sounds so unjustified today as it did then.
Exactly.
Pete
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- References:
- New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: harry
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Juan R.
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Juan R.
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Juan R.
- New version of a relativity FAQ
- Prev by Date: Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Next by Date: Re: Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields"
- Previous by thread: Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Next by thread: Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|