relativity is based on the equivalent principle,
then the developed relativity shows that the equivalent
principle is wrong

Neil G wrote:
relativity is based on the equivalent principle,
then the developed relativity shows that the equivalent
principle is wrong

You misunderstand. The equivalence principle states that
given a dynamic gravitational field ("real force") in
a given geometry you can alter the geometry and alter the
dynamic force to yield an equivalent predictive theory.

Given this then you can *by convention* choose a geometry
in which the dynamic force goes away and in that choice of
geometry the gravitational force is just geodesic evolution.

It is similar to saying you can set "zero electrostatic potential"
to be at any point you like. When doing problems you set the ground
of your device to be at zero volts. That is another "relativity
principle" namely that voltage is relative and thus it is only
meaningful to speak of voltage differences.

Setting the ground to be zero volts does not mean the original
relativity is wrong, it rather relies implicitly on the relativity
principle being right. Otherwise you'd have to worry about whether
the ground is "really at zero volts".

These choices of convention are loosly refered to as "gauge conditions".
There is a deep connection between "equivalence principles" and gauge
theories. One is effectively considering a whole class of equivalent
models with an explicit group of equivalence transformations (the gauge
group). One then insists that physical phenomena which one may predict
be independent of the choice of model (choice of gauge).

This is how Einstein formulated his field equations.

Note however that in the case of gravitation the purely geometric
formulation leads some to take geometry too seriously as a physical
quality instead of a feature of the formal language. Hence attempts
to quantize gravitation by "quantizing geometry". This I believe
to be the major flaw of quantum string and 'brane' models inaccurately
refered to as "theories".

--
Regards,
James Baugh

Baugh wrote:
Neil G wrote:
relativity is based on the equivalent principle,
then the developed relativity shows that the equivalent
principle is wrong

You misunderstand. The equivalence principle states that
given a dynamic gravitational field ("real force") in
a given geometry you can alter the geometry and alter the
dynamic force to yield an equivalent predictive theory.


are the "real forces" considered "dynamic gravitational fields"?

I thought that there was a huge difference between gravitational and a
Newtonian force

Given this then you can *by convention* choose a geometry
in which the dynamic force goes away and in that choice of
geometry the gravitational force is just geodesic evolution.


"geodesic evolution" means no Newtonian forces?

It is similar to saying you can set "zero electrostatic potential"
to be at any point you like. When doing problems you set the ground
of your device to be at zero volts. That is another "relativity
principle" namely that voltage is relative and thus it is only
meaningful to speak of voltage differences.


thanks, but I still can't see the connection between the two forces

Setting the ground to be zero volts does not mean the original
relativity is wrong, it rather relies implicitly on the relativity
principle being right. Otherwise you'd have to worry about whether
the ground is "really at zero volts".


you sounds convincing, but I still can't understand

These choices of convention are loosly refered to as "gauge
conditions".
There is a deep connection between "equivalence principles" and gauge

theories. One is effectively considering a whole class of equivalent
models with an explicit group of equivalence transformations (the
gauge
group). One then insists that physical phenomena which one may
predict
be independent of the choice of model (choice of gauge).


I think I begin to understand, thanks

This is how Einstein formulated his field equations.

Note however that in the case of gravitation the purely geometric
formulation leads some to take geometry too seriously as a physical
quality instead of a feature of the formal language. Hence attempts
to quantize gravitation by "quantizing geometry". This I believe
to be the major flaw of quantum string and 'brane' models
inaccurately
refered to as "theories".

--
Regards,
James Baugh

I understand now, so the "forces" are actually the same type of forces
depending on one's point of view, thanks

Baugh wrote:
Note however that in the case of gravitation the purely geometric
formulation leads some to take geometry too seriously as a physical
quality instead of a feature of the formal language. Hence attempts
to quantize gravitation by "quantizing geometry". This I believe
to be the major flaw of quantum string and 'brane' models inaccurately
refered to as "theories".

Don't Feynman lattice spacetimes quantize spacetime also? Isn't the
idea of the Planck distance effectively a quantizing of spacetime. I
don't think string theory is unique by doing this. Has David
Finkelstein told you anything about Tony Smith, a former grad student
of his. Smith loves Clifford Algebra just like Finkelstein does.
Smith's model kind of looks like bosonic string theory from the top
down and SU(5) GUT from the bottom up. John

Neil G wrote:

relativity is based on the equivalent principle,
then the developed relativity shows that the equivalent
principle is wrong

Nice posting. You make an ignorant statement about relativity, then
assert that your statement is supported by experiments that
you don't cite.

With all due respect, you shouldn't be posting here.

**** off!!!!!

John Anderson

Nice posting. You make an ignorant statement about relativity, then
assert that your statement is supported by experiments that
you don't cite.

With all due respect, you shouldn't be posting here.

**** off!!!!!

John Anderson

will you ever come with some comments regarding the post you fokin
imbecile?

do your best, pussy

Let me clearify further. My analogy with regard to electrostatic
potential was aimed at the point of the relativity being broken by
fixing an aspect of the theory by convention. This was in response
to your claim that the theory contradicted itself in its practice.

With regard to the theory of gravity as I described it. The
point is that the equivalence principle states that you
can either treat gravity as a "real" force or as a pseudo-force
or as a hybrad of the two. You can't distinguish between
a "real" gravitational force and a pseudo-force due to curvature.
(curving time coordinates is equivalent to accelerating the frame.)

It is not completely correct to say gravity is "just geometry" rather
one should say gravity is indistinguishable from geometry.
It is a subtile but possibly important distinction.

Take some solution to Einstein's equations, then perturb the geometry
but at the same time "add by hand" an additional field of forces in
such a way that the combination predicts particles
will follow the original paths. You have the same theory with
slightly changed metaphysical interpertation. Since it is redundant
it is just as well to only work with purely geometric form.
But it is by no means an affirmation of metaphysical facts.

You can look at the perturbative analysis of gravity waves as an example
of a hybrid description of both geometric and dynamic components to the
gravitational field. You can also look at it as simply "all geometry"
but treated perturbatively which is the usual "interpretation".
The point is that neither "interpretation" is a true interpretation.
The true interpretation is that test particles will go "that-a-way"
in the presence of matter distributions as predicted by the theory.




Neil G wrote:
Baugh wrote:

Neil G wrote:

relativity is based on the equivalent principle,
then the developed relativity shows that the equivalent
principle is wrong

You misunderstand. The equivalence principle states that
given a dynamic gravitational field ("real force") in
a given geometry you can alter the geometry and alter the
dynamic force to yield an equivalent predictive theory.



are the "real forces" considered "dynamic gravitational fields"?

I thought that there was a huge difference between gravitational and a
Newtonian force


Given this then you can *by convention* choose a geometry
in which the dynamic force goes away and in that choice of
geometry the gravitational force is just geodesic evolution.



"geodesic evolution" means no Newtonian forces?


It is similar to saying you can set "zero electrostatic potential"
to be at any point you like. When doing problems you set the ground
of your device to be at zero volts. That is another "relativity
principle" namely that voltage is relative and thus it is only
meaningful to speak of voltage differences.



thanks, but I still can't see the connection between the two forces


Setting the ground to be zero volts does not mean the original
relativity is wrong, it rather relies implicitly on the relativity
principle being right. Otherwise you'd have to worry about whether
the ground is "really at zero volts".



you sounds convincing, but I still can't understand


These choices of convention are loosly refered to as "gauge

conditions".

There is a deep connection between "equivalence principles" and gauge


theories. One is effectively considering a whole class of equivalent
models with an explicit group of equivalence transformations (the

gauge

group). One then insists that physical phenomena which one may

predict

be independent of the choice of model (choice of gauge).



I think I begin to understand, thanks


This is how Einstein formulated his field equations.

Note however that in the case of gravitation the purely geometric
formulation leads some to take geometry too seriously as a physical
quality instead of a feature of the formal language. Hence attempts
to quantize gravitation by "quantizing geometry". This I believe
to be the major flaw of quantum string and 'brane' models

inaccurately

refered to as "theories".

--
Regards,
James Baugh


I understand now, so the "forces" are actually the same type of forces
depending on one's point of view, thanks



--
Regards,
James Baugh

Baugh wrote:
Let me clearify further. My analogy with regard to electrostatic
potential was aimed at the point of the relativity being broken by
fixing an aspect of the theory by convention. This was in response
to your claim that the theory contradicted itself in its practice.

With regard to the theory of gravity as I described it. The
point is that the equivalence principle states that you
can either treat gravity as a "real" force or as a pseudo-force
or as a hybrad of the two. You can't distinguish between
a "real" gravitational force and a pseudo-force due to curvature.
(curving time coordinates is equivalent to accelerating the frame.)

It is not completely correct to say gravity is "just geometry" rather
one should say gravity is indistinguishable from geometry.
It is a subtile but possibly important distinction.

Take some solution to Einstein's equations, then perturb the geometry
but at the same time "add by hand" an additional field of forces in
such a way that the combination predicts particles
will follow the original paths. You have the same theory with
slightly changed metaphysical interpertation. Since it is redundant
it is just as well to only work with purely geometric form.
But it is by no means an affirmation of metaphysical facts.

Just a quick input James, been following your posts
and I think you're quite smart!

You can look at the perturbative analysis of gravity waves as an example
of a hybrid description of both geometric and dynamic components to the
gravitational field. You can also look at it as simply "all geometry"
but treated perturbatively which is the usual "interpretation".
The point is that neither "interpretation" is a true interpretation.
The true interpretation is that test particles will go "that-a-way"
in the presence of matter distributions as predicted by the theory.

S Weinberg's writes similiar to James about geometrization of
gravitation, and I rarely disagree with SW. however, we have
extreme experimental evidence that only 3 spatial dimensions
(by testing freedom of movement) exist. Also, that movement
requires a real time.

I respect James and SW's open mindness but I regard that as a
dangerous philosophy. It is dismissive of operations in curved
4D, as being real. We've worked hard to define spacetime and
we've measured carefully the effects of gravity on light, like
deflection, Shapiro, Pound-Rebka, etc...where light defines our
viewpoint.

For those reasons, there is no way I'll reconsider the idea of
spacetime being an imaginary frame for solving physics problems,
spacetime is real. Personally, I don't buy the idea of a slow
divorce from reality to suck up some math, on the contrary I
would have the logic of math confirmed by Nature, and not the
other way around to fit our fantasies...keep that going and
we're back to the idiot Catholics who decided creation happened
in 4004 BC, and a lot more dummy poop the pope sells to flockies.

I meant that paragraph to be severe, because science must retain
a firm foot in measureable reality. Everyone reading this post
has access to a clock and ruler, and thus we all share spacetime,
that non-negotiable.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

PS: Once again I think Mr. Baugh posts well.

"Baugh" wrote in message
...
Let me clearify further. My analogy with regard to electrostatic
potential was aimed at the point of the relativity being broken by
fixing an aspect of the theory by convention. This was in response
to your claim that the theory contradicted itself in its practice.

With regard to the theory of gravity as I described it. The
point is that the equivalence principle states that you
can either treat gravity as a "real" force or as a pseudo-force
or as a hybrad of the two. You can't distinguish between
a "real" gravitational force and a pseudo-force due to curvature.
(curving time coordinates is equivalent to accelerating the frame.)

It is not completely correct to say gravity is "just geometry" rather
one should say gravity is indistinguishable from geometry.
It is a subtile but possibly important distinction.

Take some solution to Einstein's equations, then perturb the geometry
but at the same time "add by hand" an additional field of forces in
such a way that the combination predicts particles
will follow the original paths.

Baugh I must admit I find your responses fascinating, a bit different, and
insightful. Often I read them and think I am not so sure about that - then
I think a bit more and say he has a point. But with regard to the above
even after thinking about it a bit I am not so sure. I am thinking of
Kretchmans objections to the principle of general covariance - he showed it
had no physical basis - any law can be put in covariant form Which is why
we need to add in the requirement of invariance - namely all the absolute
terms appearing in the equations remain unchanged (Ohanian - Gravitation and
Space-Time - page 374). Doing what you suggest would seem to violate this
requirement - or am I missing something?

Thanks
Bill

You have the same theory with
slightly changed metaphysical interpertation. Since it is redundant
it is just as well to only work with purely geometric form.
But it is by no means an affirmation of metaphysical facts.

You can look at the perturbative analysis of gravity waves as an example
of a hybrid description of both geometric and dynamic components to the
gravitational field. You can also look at it as simply "all geometry"
but treated perturbatively which is the usual "interpretation".
The point is that neither "interpretation" is a true interpretation.
The true interpretation is that test particles will go "that-a-way"
in the presence of matter distributions as predicted by the theory.




Neil G wrote:
Baugh wrote:

Neil G wrote:

relativity is based on the equivalent principle,
then the developed relativity shows that the equivalent
principle is wrong

You misunderstand. The equivalence principle states that
given a dynamic gravitational field ("real force") in
a given geometry you can alter the geometry and alter the
dynamic force to yield an equivalent predictive theory.



are the "real forces" considered "dynamic gravitational fields"?

I thought that there was a huge difference between gravitational and a
Newtonian force


Given this then you can *by convention* choose a geometry
in which the dynamic force goes away and in that choice of
geometry the gravitational force is just geodesic evolution.



"geodesic evolution" means no Newtonian forces?


It is similar to saying you can set "zero electrostatic potential"
to be at any point you like. When doing problems you set the ground
of your device to be at zero volts. That is another "relativity
principle" namely that voltage is relative and thus it is only
meaningful to speak of voltage differences.



thanks, but I still can't see the connection between the two forces


Setting the ground to be zero volts does not mean the original
relativity is wrong, it rather relies implicitly on the relativity
principle being right. Otherwise you'd have to worry about whether
the ground is "really at zero volts".



you sounds convincing, but I still can't understand


These choices of convention are loosly refered to as "gauge

conditions".

There is a deep connection between "equivalence principles" and gauge


theories. One is effectively considering a whole class of equivalent
models with an explicit group of equivalence transformations (the

gauge

group). One then insists that physical phenomena which one may

predict

be independent of the choice of model (choice of gauge).



I think I begin to understand, thanks


This is how Einstein formulated his field equations.

Note however that in the case of gravitation the purely geometric
formulation leads some to take geometry too seriously as a physical
quality instead of a feature of the formal language. Hence attempts
to quantize gravitation by "quantizing geometry". This I believe
to be the major flaw of quantum string and 'brane' models

inaccurately

refered to as "theories".

--
Regards,
James Baugh


I understand now, so the "forces" are actually the same type of forces
depending on one's point of view, thanks



--
Regards,
James Baugh

Baugh wrote:
With regard to the theory of gravity as I described it. The
point is that the equivalence principle states that you
can either treat gravity as a "real" force or as a pseudo-force
or as a hybrad of the two. You can't distinguish between
a "real" gravitational force and a pseudo-force due to curvature.
(curving time coordinates is equivalent to accelerating the frame.)

It's actually the connection, not the curvature, that is related to
"gravitational force".


Take some solution to Einstein's equations, then perturb the geometry
but at the same time "add by hand" an additional field of forces in
such a way that the combination predicts particles
will follow the original paths.

In general you cannot do that over a finite region. You can always do it
at a single point, but that's not sufficient for your needs here.


Tom Roberts