Re: New version of a relativity FAQ

Pmb says...

"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

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.

Einstein was not familiar with Riemannian geometry. He was not familiar
with the coordinate-free formulation of physics. He originally thought
that he would be led to General Relativity by the requirement that his
theory be invariant under all coordinate transformations (as opposed
to just the Lorentz transformations), but this turned out to be a
vacuous requirement. *Every* theory of physics can be cast into
a form that is coordinate-free, if it is formulated in terms of
geometric objects: scalars, vectors, tensors. What is interesting
about General Relativity is that was the only "background-free"
theory ever invented. The meaning of "background-free" is that
there are no non-dynamical scalar, vector or tensor fields. This is
in contrast with Newtonian physics, in which there is a fundamental
non-dynamical scalar field (universal time) and in contrast with
Special Relativity, in which there is a fundamental non-dynamical
tensor field (the metric).

I don't believe that Einstein was aware of the coordinate-free
way to define vectors and tensors.

Anyway, Einstein's quote doesn't explain *why* he disagrees
with the claim that GR is no more geometrical than Newtonian
physics. So what does it mean to argue against his reasons?
I have to know what his reasons were to argue against them.

Also state what advancements proved that Weinberg is wrong.

*What* statement by Weinberg is wrong? Once again, you include
the irrelevant part (who said it) and you leave out the relevant
(what was said, and what were the reasons). The fact that Weinberg
agreed with you carries no weight. The only thing that carries
weight is his arguments for his position. And that's what you
have left out, in both the Einstein case and in the Weinberg case.

That's why I wish you would stop the name-dropping. If you
want to quote an *argument* made by Einstein or Weinberg, go
ahead. That would be interesting. But to skip the argument and
only mention the conclusion is worthless. It's just game-playing.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: Nikola Tesla about Relativity
    ... >>There is no doubt that Einstein is a plagirist. ... ** Very powerful but simple Principle of Least Action ... are you claiming that einstein plagiarised general relativity from ... perhaps you really believe the reality of your ``As the Physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nikola Tesla about Relativity
    ... >So, any attempt trying to redirect my reply to other newsgroup failed, you ... >There is no doubt that Einstein is a plagirist. ... are you claiming that einstein plagiarised general relativity from ... perhaps you really believe the reality of your ``As the Physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Tip for GPS users
    ... General Relativity and Astrology. ... Physicists accepted the theory ... have you ever seen GTR used to model ... does not agree with Einstein on this point. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >>I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... Without this restrictive principle it would be ... > unless the principle of general relativity were used. ... What would physics look like without gravitation? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)