Re: New version of a relativity FAQ


"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1214584959_43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g42s6t0iri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
harry says...


"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TsH8k.11435$uE5.11384@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

[...]

Quoting Einstein for support of archaic terminology is hopeless -- do
you
quote Chaucer in support of using middle English?

Those are weird remarks, for here is what the above message replied to:

"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g3tdh70176h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[...]
If Einstein made a good argument in favor of
some claim, then you can quote the argument.

The quote isn't really an argument, it's a conclusion.

True. Hopefully that conclusion refers to a large piece of text.

I disagree. Recall what Einstein wrote
--------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------
If this was but a mere conclusion then it would be a statement of facts.
Basically Einstein is addressing the assertion "general theory relativity
geometerizes the Physics of the gravitational field." Einstein responds "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. " His reference to EM is mentioned here by Einstein as an example
of field in physics but for which the field is not geometerized. That is an
arguement. It is not presented as part of a conclusion. Basically Einstein
is saying that there is no reason to assert that GR geometerizes the
gravitational field. That too is not a conclusion but an arguement.

Pete


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Deep Impact" predictions
    ... considered by physics. ... that the laws of gravity do not apply to quantum particles such as in ... the same 3-space motions - but definitely not by geometry alone. ... Geometry has no cause that can initiate motion. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: "Deep Impact" predictions
    ... considered by physics. ... that the laws of gravity do not apply to quantum particles such as in ... the same 3-space motions - but definitely not by geometry alone. ... Geometry has no cause that can initiate motion. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... hyperbolic geometry and then claim that 'the structure of spacetime' ... The claim that SR -> hyperbolic geometry is incorrect. ... Hyperbolic geometry is no more deduced from the postulates than DNA ... then you simply need a better education in physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... >>light is independent of the source as a function of geometry. ... deeper questions physics into a shallow debate over semantics. ... I will only justify my assumptions at the same level you do. ... Your refusal to understand what the math means ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... that SR is taught badly. ... > I do notice that a strangely high percentage of physics people seem to ... > Social conditionaing overrode mathematics and geometry. ... >>consistent as FULL euclidean geometry. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading