On Apr 4, 8:33 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
PD wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:00:05 -0700:



On Apr 3, 9:14 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

wrote:
Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered
by particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

Juan,

I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all because
they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of relativists. I
don't recall his exact words.

I'd say your recall is a little more off than "not exact". Particle
physicists are just fine with the geometric qualities of spacetime,
thanks very much.

It may be good to precise that "geometric" means in the context of the
present thread.

The Weinberg quotation that relativist Carroll choosed to attack Weinberg
is precisely an extract from the same page 147 from Weinberg book i had
cited in a previous message. It is in the chapter where Weinberg rejects
any fundamental meaning for the geometric approach to gravity.

Carroll only quotes a small part from Weinberg book, ignoring the more
interesting part. A more complete quotation was provided by Kris Krogh

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...#comment-36092

I copy and paste:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Einstein and his successors have regarded the effects of a gravitational
field as producing a change in the geometry of space and time. At one
time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be brought into a
geometric formulation, but this hope has met with disappointment, and the
geometric interpretation of the theory of gravitation has dwindled to a
mere analogy, which lingers in our language in terms like "metric,"
"affine connection," and "curvature," but is not otherwise very useful.
The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the
astronomers' photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so
on, and it simply doesn't matter whether we ascribe these predictions to
the physical effect of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and
photons or to a curvature of space and time. (The reader should be warned
that these views are heterodox and would meet with objections from many
general relativists.)

}

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

It is also heterodox among a lot of particle physicists as well.

The issue is whether there is a correlation between underlying reality
and computational methods. Because quantized fields seem to have such
computational power over such a wide domain (in size and in time),
many particle physicists believe that this computational method
reflects an underlying reality. These people look at Feynman diagrams
as more than just mnemonics for writing down terms in a perturbative
expansion of a scattering matrix. Interestingly, Feynman would have
been the first to disagree. He was fond of pointing out that different
approaches to solving the same problem often have completely different
pictures of the underlying reality -- and it's completely impossible
to determine which one of them is "more right", because you can do the
same level of computation with any of them. It is often the case that
you can demonstrate that such different approaches are
*mathematically* equivalent, though whether that translates to
conceptually equivalent I suppose depends on how much of a
mathematician you are. Another example is lattice gauge theory, which
is another computational method used most popularly for QCD. In
lattice gauge theory, there is still quantization of the fields, but
at lattice vertices, QCD is calculated *exactly*, not perturbatively
-- and so for lattice gauge theory, Feynman diagrams (and so any
"picture" they inspire about how reality works) have no meaning.

There is no good quantized theory of gravity at the moment, and so
there is no way to even probe whether there is a mathematical or
conceptual equivalence (cf the caveat above) between the geometric
approach and the perturbative quantum approach.

PD

PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:33 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
wrote:
PD wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:00:05 -0700:



On Apr 3, 9:14 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez

wrote:
Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered
by particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

Juan,

I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all because
they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of relativists. I
don't recall his exact words.

I'd say your recall is a little more off than "not exact". Particle
physicists are just fine with the geometric qualities of spacetime,
thanks very much.

It may be good to precise that "geometric" means in the context of the
present thread.

The Weinberg quotation that relativist Carroll choosed to attack Weinberg
is precisely an extract from the same page 147 from Weinberg book i had
cited in a previous message. It is in the chapter where Weinberg rejects
any fundamental meaning for the geometric approach to gravity.

Carroll only quotes a small part from Weinberg book, ignoring the more
interesting part. A more complete quotation was provided by Kris Krogh

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...#comment-36092

I copy and paste:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Einstein and his successors have regarded the effects of a gravitational
field as producing a change in the geometry of space and time. At one
time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be brought into a
geometric formulation, but this hope has met with disappointment, and the
geometric interpretation of the theory of gravitation has dwindled to a
mere analogy, which lingers in our language in terms like "metric,"
"affine connection," and "curvature," but is not otherwise very useful.
The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the
astronomers' photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so
on, and it simply doesn't matter whether we ascribe these predictions to
the physical effect of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and
photons or to a curvature of space and time. (The reader should be warned
that these views are heterodox and would meet with objections from many
general relativists.)

}

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

It is also heterodox among a lot of particle physicists as well.

The issue is whether there is a correlation between underlying reality
and computational methods. Because quantized fields seem to have such
computational power over such a wide domain (in size and in time),
many particle physicists believe that this computational method
reflects an underlying reality. These people look at Feynman diagrams
as more than just mnemonics for writing down terms in a perturbative
expansion of a scattering matrix. Interestingly, Feynman would have
been the first to disagree. He was fond of pointing out that different
approaches to solving the same problem often have completely different
pictures of the underlying reality -- and it's completely impossible
to determine which one of them is "more right", because you can do the
same level of computation with any of them. It is often the case that

feynman was not a god, but a moron like any othar moron

you foool

Juan,

Lorentz invariance is an extraordinarily beautiful concept in physical
theory. How is it that professional physicists today can't find
Lorentz invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?

Shubee

On Apr 4, 9:32Â*am, grecian wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:33 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
wrote:
PD wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:00:05 -0700:

On Apr 3, 9:14 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez

wrote:
Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered
by particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

Juan,

I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all because
they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of relativists. I
don't recall his exact words.

I'd say your recall is a little more off than "not exact". Particle
physicists are just fine with the geometric qualities of spacetime,
thanks very much.

It may be good to precise that "geometric" means in the context of the
present thread.

The Weinberg quotation that relativist Carroll choosed to attack Weinberg
is precisely an extract from the same page 147 from Weinberg book i had
cited in a previous message. It is in the chapter where Weinberg rejects
any fundamental meaning for the geometric approach to gravity.

Carroll only quotes a small part from Weinberg book, ignoring the more
interesting part. A more complete quotation was provided by Kris Krogh

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...#comment-36092

I copy and paste:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Einstein and his successors have regarded the effects of a gravitational
field as producing a change in the geometry of space and time. At one
time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be brought into a
geometric formulation, but this hope has met with disappointment, and the
geometric interpretation of the theory of gravitation has dwindled to a
mere analogy, which lingers in our language in terms like "metric,"
"affine connection," and "curvature," but is not otherwise very useful..
The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the
astronomers' photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so
on, and it simply doesn't matter whether we ascribe these predictions to
the physical effect of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and
photons or to a curvature of space and time. (The reader should be warned
that these views are heterodox and would meet with objections from many
general relativists.)

}

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

It is also heterodox among a lot of particle physicists as well.

The issue is whether there is a correlation between underlying reality
and computational methods. Because quantized fields seem to have such
computational power over such a wide domain (in size and in time),
many particle physicists believe that this computational method
reflects an underlying reality. These people look at Feynman diagrams
as more than just mnemonics for writing down terms in a perturbative
expansion of a scattering matrix. Interestingly, Feynman would have
been the first to disagree. He was fond of pointing out that different
approaches to solving the same problem often have completely different
pictures of the underlying reality -- and it's completely impossible
to determine which one of them is "more right", because you can do the
same level of computation with any of them. It is often the case that

feynman was not a god, but a moron like any othar moron

you foool

I suppose this depends on your attitude in life. If you take the
approach that everyone is equal in being morons, then your
expectations for anything more than stupidity will be very low. If you
take the approach that everyone is equal in having an exceptional
talent, though not necessarily an exceptional talent in the same area,
then your expectations will be substantially different.

I do get the impression that a lot of cranks here come in with the
attitude, "I'm a moron. I've been told I'm a moron. You are no better
than me. So you must be a moron, too. This is a discussion group for
morons. Might as well be about physics as about anything. Doesn't
matter."

PD

PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 9:32 am, grecian wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:33 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
wrote:
PD wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:00:05 -0700:

On Apr 3, 9:14 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez

wrote:
Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered
by particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

Juan,

I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all because
they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of relativists. I
don't recall his exact words.

I'd say your recall is a little more off than "not exact". Particle
physicists are just fine with the geometric qualities of spacetime,
thanks very much.

It may be good to precise that "geometric" means in the context of the
present thread.

The Weinberg quotation that relativist Carroll choosed to attack Weinberg
is precisely an extract from the same page 147 from Weinberg book i had
cited in a previous message. It is in the chapter where Weinberg rejects
any fundamental meaning for the geometric approach to gravity.

Carroll only quotes a small part from Weinberg book, ignoring the more
interesting part. A more complete quotation was provided by Kris Krogh

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/w...#comment-36092

I copy and paste:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Einstein and his successors have regarded the effects of a gravitational
field as producing a change in the geometry of space and time. At one
time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be brought into a
geometric formulation, but this hope has met with disappointment, and the
geometric interpretation of the theory of gravitation has dwindled to a
mere analogy, which lingers in our language in terms like "metric,"
"affine connection," and "curvature," but is not otherwise very useful.
The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the
astronomers' photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so
on, and it simply doesn't matter whether we ascribe these predictions to
the physical effect of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and
photons or to a curvature of space and time. (The reader should be warned
that these views are heterodox and would meet with objections from many
general relativists.)

}

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

It is also heterodox among a lot of particle physicists as well.

The issue is whether there is a correlation between underlying reality
and computational methods. Because quantized fields seem to have such
computational power over such a wide domain (in size and in time),
many particle physicists believe that this computational method
reflects an underlying reality. These people look at Feynman diagrams
as more than just mnemonics for writing down terms in a perturbative
expansion of a scattering matrix. Interestingly, Feynman would have
been the first to disagree. He was fond of pointing out that different
approaches to solving the same problem often have completely different
pictures of the underlying reality -- and it's completely impossible
to determine which one of them is "more right", because you can do the
same level of computation with any of them. It is often the case that

feynman was not a god, but a moron like any othar moron

you foool

I suppose this depends on your attitude in life. If you take the
approach that everyone is equal in being morons, then your
expectations for anything more than stupidity will be very low. If you
take the approach that everyone is equal in having an exceptional
talent, though not necessarily an exceptional talent in the same area,
then your expectations will be substantially different.

I do get the impression that a lot of cranks here come in with the
attitude, "I'm a moron. I've been told I'm a moron. You are no better
than me. So you must be a moron, too. This is a discussion group for
morons. Might as well be about physics as about anything. Doesn't
matter."

PD

wrong again as usual

_you_ ve been proved moron so many times

empiricaly, i mean with clear data with no errorbars,

so you must be a moron

also here, and everywhere, where you take quotes
out of context and make yourself slogans, and you
foken really bulive in them

you seems foken brain dead

On Mar 30, 7:24 am, PD wrote:
On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee wrote:



On Mar 29, 2:10 pm, YBM wrote:

Shubee a écrit :

My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.

This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
transformations since you haven't defined it...

It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.

Stand side-to-side on an infinitely long ruler with other cretins like
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
distances in equal times on the moving ruler. Permit each cretin to
define time at his location to be whatever number his nose is pointing
to on the ruler as it moves by. Would you call those individual clock
times synchronized? Now tell the cretin that is standing on the ruler
at position x that he will be adding a number f(x) to his clock time
thereby resetting his clock time either forward or backward by a
constant amount. Do that for each cretin. I'm certain that all the
cretins will respond as you have done, saying, "It can't be done."
"It's a violation of the laws of physics." Well, as I have said
before, you are an idiot.

Shubee

That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?

Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wris****ch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?

PD

I didn't say or imply that any of those clocks are synchronized. How
do any of those clock time definitions invalidate my derivation of the
Lorentz transformation at http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
?

Shubee

On Apr 4, 11:26*am, Shubee wrote:
On Mar 30, 7:24 am, PD wrote:



On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 29, 2:10 pm, YBM wrote:

Shubee a écrit :

My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.

This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
transformations since you haven't defined it...

It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.

Stand side-to-side on an infinitely long ruler with other cretins like
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
distances in equal times on the moving ruler. Permit each cretin to
define time at his location to be whatever number his nose is pointing
to on the ruler as it moves by. Would you call those individual clock
times synchronized? Now tell the cretin that is standing on the ruler
at position x that he will be adding a number f(x) to his clock time
thereby resetting his clock time either forward or backward by a
constant amount. Do that for each cretin. I'm certain that all the
cretins will respond as you have done, saying, "It can't be done."
"It's a violation of the laws of physics." Well, as I have said
before, you are an idiot.

Shubee

That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?

Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wris****ch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?

PD

I didn't say or imply that any of those clocks are synchronized.

I just asked if they were. I gather you agree that they are not. Now
the question is whether you think the clock time as recorded on any of
them is worth anything -- and how you would tell. I mean, as opposed
to something that is a monotonic counter that increments a random
amount at intervals -- which I would submit is useless as a clock.

How
do any of those clock time definitions invalidate my derivation of the
Lorentz transformation athttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
?

Shubee

Shubee wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:34:41 -0700:

Juan,

Lorentz invariance is an extraordinarily beautiful concept in physical
theory.

Beauty is a relative concept. One may call "beauty" other may name "ugly".

And in the end *experiment* is the judge in science. It has no importance
how 'beauty' anyone believes his theory is but it fails to explain data.

How is it that professional physicists today can't find Lorentz
invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?

Fail to understant that are you asking for.


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

On Mar 30, 5:59*am, isosceles wrote:
On Mar 29, 6:15 pm, PD wrote:



On Mar 29, 10:59 am, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 29, 10:36 am, YBM wrote:

Shubee wrote:
"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
better than Einstein did.

Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
this is doubtfull.

Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays

They don't. All you need is something that has the same speed to and
fro.Walking will work.

oahaha oahaha

you just postulated in other thread that
two distinct objects in exactly same place
is not synchronizing

Synchronising is actually not at all fundamental to relativity. Its
claim to fame is that:

1. SR was derived originally by using a sync convention,
2. It mimics Newtonian absolute sync for low speeds,
3. It allows for easier quantification of certain effects.

Nevertheless, SR can be derived without setting up any sync convention
(IOW, it's a convenience, not a necessity).

The bottom line is that Shubee's talking about "believing that clocks
have to synchronized with light rays" is not even wrong - it's plain N/
A.

--
Jan Bielawski

On Apr 4, 12:43*pm, JanPB wrote:
On Mar 30, 5:59*am, isosceles wrote:



On Mar 29, 6:15 pm, PD wrote:

On Mar 29, 10:59 am, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 29, 10:36 am, YBM wrote:

Shubee wrote:
"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
better than Einstein did.

Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
this is doubtfull.

Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays

They don't. All you need is something that has the same speed to and
fro.Walking will work.

oahaha oahaha

you just postulated in other thread that
two distinct objects in exactly same place
is not synchronizing

Synchronising is actually not at all fundamental to relativity. Its
claim to fame is that:

1. SR was derived originally by using a sync convention,
2. It mimics Newtonian absolute sync for low speeds,
3. It allows for easier quantification of certain effects.

Nevertheless, SR can be derived without setting up any sync convention
(IOW, it's a convenience, not a necessity).

The bottom line is that Shubee's talking about "believing that clocks
have to synchronized with light rays" is not even wrong - it's plain N/
A.

Exactly. SR can use *any* isotropic sync signal, where "isotropic" is
the key. Using light is just not necessary, but since the isotropy is
experimentally confirmed, it's handy. But you're also right that it
does not require synchronization at all, nor does it require multiple
clocks.

PD