On Mar 20, 6:17*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
maxwell wrote:
There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
'relativity'.

This is plain and simply not true. SR was INSTRUMENTAL in leading
Einstein to GR, and remains as both:
* A) the local limit of GR at any point in any manifold
* B) the solution of the GR field equation for an empty universe
* * *and the topology of R^4.

SRT is a consequence of Maxwell's theory of electricity
and GRT is Einstein's theory of gravity.

Hmmm. Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics is incompatible with SR, but
the modern version of it is fully compatible with SR. Today we would say
that SR is a consequence of local symmetries of the universe we inhabit
(specifically: local Lorentz invariance).

He wasted the last 40 years
of his life trying to unify these two field theories.

This was only "wasted" to those who do not understand what he was doing.
Yes, he did not succeed in unifying GR and electrodynamics. But in the
journey there was much to be learned....

Modern
theorists have wasted their own careers in attempting the same but
adding the complexity of the quantum.

The modern issues are MUCH more complicated than you seem to think.

Tom Roberts
Tom, I was making a point about the physics, NOT some mathematical
comment about two points that are infinitely close together or
Einstein's mental processes. By introducing the term 'manifold' you
have already left the world of reality (physics) and landed on Plato's
planet of invariant relationships (math). Instead of writing
mathematical gobbleygook like "SR is a consequence of local symmetries
of the universe" why not talk about real phenomena, like electricity.
SR is supposed to work at macro-separations: stop hiding behind
infinitessimals, such as 'local symmetries'. SR is a theory of EM
(check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
were doing?). It was the universality of c in Maxwell's model of the
aether that led to all this nonsense. Trying to justify a theory of
gravity that only manifests measurable effects with mega masses & then
linking this to the interactions between two microscopic electrons at
LARGE separations is too much of a stretch of the imagination. If you
were right why did Einstein waste 40 years? Incidentally, what did
Einstein learn from all this effort?

maxwell wrote:


Tom, I was making a point about the physics, NOT some mathematical
comment about two points that are infinitely close together or
Einstein's mental processes. By introducing the term 'manifold' you
have already left the world of reality (physics) and landed on Plato's
planet of invariant relationships (math). Instead of writing
mathematical gobbleygook like "SR is a consequence of local symmetries
of the universe" why not talk about real phenomena, like electricity.
SR is supposed to work at macro-separations: stop hiding behind
infinitessimals, such as 'local symmetries'. SR is a theory of EM
(check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
were doing?).

Making mistakes. Lorentz admitted that Einstein's approach was the best.
Every covariant theory of gravitation requires manifolds.

The fact of the matter is that mathematics is the horse upon which
physics rides. Newton did not come up with his theory of motion until he
invented calculus, complete with infinitesimals.

The equations ARE the theory.

Bob Kolker

maxwell wrote on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:16:35 -0700:

SR is a theory of EM
(check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
were doing?).

Tom misunderstandings about history of SR were revealed on the March
thread "History of relativity" on sci.physics.relativity.

--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Robert J. Kolker wrote on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:51:32 -0400:

infinitessimals, such as 'local symmetries'. SR is a theory of EM
(check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
were doing?).

Making mistakes. Lorentz admitted that Einstein's approach was the best.

In his 1914 paper Lorentz credited Poincaré (before Einstein and
Minkowski) as pionner in SR.

It was also Lorentz one of Nobel Prize committee who rejected Einstein
for the Nobel Prize for relativity because was unfair.

Every covariant theory of gravitation requires manifolds.

It depends one means by "covariant"



--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

maxwell wrote:
Tom, I was making a point about the physics, NOT some mathematical
comment about two points that are infinitely close together or
Einstein's mental processes. By introducing the term 'manifold' you
have already left the world of reality (physics) and landed on Plato's
planet of invariant relationships (math).

Hmmm. In physics we make models of the world. To date, by far the best
models are all mathematical. SR is no exception -- it is inherently
mathematical.


Instead of writing
mathematical gobbleygook like "SR is a consequence of local symmetries
of the universe" why not talk about real phenomena, like electricity.

Because you were attempting to describe the basis of SR, and today that
is symmetries of the manifold.


SR is supposed to work at macro-separations: stop hiding behind
infinitessimals, such as 'local symmetries'.

Today nobody expects SR to apply globally to the world we inhabit. It
only applies as the local limit of GR. Note that in this context,
"local" frequently encompasses an entire experiment accurately,
depending on the details.


SR is a theory of EM
(check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
were doing?).

Historically, SR was based on EM. Today it is not. We have LEARNED a
thing or three in the intervening century....


It was the universality of c in Maxwell's model of the
aether that led to all this nonsense.

But today, c is a parameter of the local symmetry of spacetime. It is
merely an historical artifact that the same symbol (c) is used for two
quite different quantities: the speed of light in vacuum, and the
invariant local speed of the manifold.


Trying to justify a theory of
gravity that only manifests measurable effects with mega masses & then
linking this to the interactions between two microscopic electrons at
LARGE separations is too much of a stretch of the imagination.

I have no idea why you think anybody does that. Gravitation between
electrons is utterly negligible compared to their EM interaction.


If you
were right why did Einstein waste 40 years? Incidentally, what did
Einstein learn from all this effort?

Ask him.


Tom Roberts

Face it Hanson, you're obsessed with Einstein,
he's all you ever talk about.

Looking at Nade's IP address ( 122.53.86.160 ),
I see he's using Google on IE7 on Windows Vista
on the “ Philippine Long Distance Telephone � in “ Makati City �.

Michael Varney posts from the University of Colorado, Boulder,
and uses Mozilla Thunderbird. Last we heard from him,
he said he has a life ( working on quantum gravity at the NIST );
so he doesn't post here anymore.

Back when he was posting, he seldom mentioned physics,
if I recall correctly.

"Jeff?Relf" wrote in message
...
Face it Hanson, you're obsessed with Einstein,
he's all you ever talk about.

hanso worte:
.... ahahahaha.. That's more engaging & interesting then
you whining about your fears about your Land lord & your
personal sorry state of being a pauper & dead-beat dad.
ahahaha... ahaha... ahahaha... ahahanson

I try to be a good tenant and a good “ landlord �.
( all landlords are also tenants )... that's not “ whining �.
Likewise, you're renting space in Einstein's head.

P.S. I misspelled “ to boot �.

"Jeff?Relf" wrote in message
...
I try to be a good tenant and a good " landlord ".
( all landlords are also tenants )... that's not " whining ".
Likewise, you're renting space in Einstein's head.
P.S. I misspelled " to boot ".

ahahahaha... but that apparently makes you crank yourself,
big time, bad and grievously... to the point of you being
obsessed with me! ... ahahaha... Boot yourself, Jeff.
Now go and suck an Egg. Easter is here!... ahahaha...

"hanson" wrote in message
news:8RbFj.334$Oj5.187@trnddc06...
| "Jeff?Relf" wrote in message
| ...
| I try to be a good tenant and a good " landlord ".
| ( all landlords are also tenants )... that's not " whining ".
| Likewise, you're renting space in Einstein's head.
| P.S. I misspelled " to boot ".
|
| ahahahaha... but that apparently makes you crank yourself,
| big time, bad and grievously... to the point of you being
| obsessed with me! ... ahahaha... Boot yourself, Jeff.
| Now go and suck an Egg. Easter is here!... ahahaha...
|
Have a look at this for me, pal. I'm curious as to how well it works
on another computer other than my own.
It's a Keplerian orbit plot, all you need change are the numbers in
the yellow boxes. You can ignore the questions the operating
system spits out.