Re: New version of a relativity FAQ

Pmb wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:49:37 -0400:

"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g40fco020fi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pmb says...

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

That's wrong. The understanding of General Relativity has *advanced*
since 1948.

Please state the specific advancements which proved that Einstein was
wrong. Also state what advancements proved that Weinberg is wrong.

Oh the million dollars question!

I have asked for years to Tom Roberts to provide a single experiment or
observation verifying the geometrical picture of gravity and disproving a
field or DPI formulation. I am still waiting...

Feynman, Weinberg, and others have been unfairly attacked by geometers
when rejected in public a purely geometrical interpretation of gravity.

There is a hard but on-topic discussion on Motl blog

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/steven-weinberg-vs-weird-physicists.html

(\blockquote
Weinberg as a relativistic heretic

The origin of this controversy goes back to the 1970s. Weinberg's
textbook on general relativity was very modern - and oriented towards
the interpretation of general relativity as a part of the effective
quantum field theory [...] Because of that, we can interpret the whole
theory as a theory of curved space but we don't have to: the metric
tensor may also be viewed as another field living in the Minkowski
spacetime [...] You don't need to know the words "curved space" to
calculate the predictions of general relativity.

A certain group of people in cosmology has reacted just like religious
bigots and they wanted Weinberg to "retract" these statements whose
validity is completely obvious to anyone who has any idea how field
theory - especially quantum field theory - works. However, the deeper
you penetrate into the community of the loop-quantum-gravity-like
pseudoscientists and their fans, the less clear these things are to
them. Weinberg has never retracted but I think that it is fair to say
that these loud irrelevant fourth-class scientists have intimidated
Weinberg into silence which is kind of scary.
)

Indeed i am working in a paper that invalidates by the first time the
geometrical formulation of gravity. The paper received very good
acceptance between non-geometers.

But now i am dealing with an 'anonymous' referee who is doing a very
unfair refereeing process.

E.g. Initially he rejected the paper arguing was not new and thus
uninteresting. I complained and invited referee to provide a single
reference in previous work. He could not cite a single one, withdrawn his
unfair criticism and changed of tactic.

After he argued that some parts of my work were wrong but said not what
ones, which would impede any verification of his claims. I complained
again and now he present parts that in his opinion are wrong.

His arguments are scary. At one part of the report, he takes two
expressions from mine f(R) and g(r), he rewrite as f(r) and g(r) and then
argues on why my discussion of f(r) is wrong using arguments from g(r).
But i was discussing about f(R) and the arguments from g(r) do not apply
to f(R) because *R* is completely different from *r*!

Fortunately, with some help from an assistant editor I have identified
the referee. He is a famous geometer who is working in a warp drive
engine. If my work is correct, then his geometrical engine would belong
to some fiction Star Trek episode. That may explain his review attitude.


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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
    ... The understanding of General Relativity has *advanced* ... Please state the specific advancements which proved that Einstein was wrong. ... vector or tensor fields. ... *What* statement by Weinberg is wrong? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity
    ... understands general relativity better than Einstein did." ... already in the introduction Weinberg explains why he feels ... Precisely the failure to geometrize all of physics physics promoted by ... description of the physics of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity
    ... understands general relativity better than Einstein did." ... Weinberg. ... It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)