1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.PHYSICS.RELATIVITY

  • "Logunov and Mestvirishvil disprove "general relativity""

    From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 19 00:10:46 2024
    "Logunov and Mestvirishvil disprove "general relativity""

    https://philarchive.org/archive/GUILAM = pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 19 21:27:19 2024
    "The Riemann metric and Riemann tensor for Riemannian geometry
    is just a neat way to make a simplification of an idealistic
    gravitational well involving a large central body and a
    small satellite."

    All relativity geometries are merely diagrammatic representations of the
    math.

    "Now, "momentum", is not necessarily what people think it is,
    since in kinematics it results _exchange_, so, momentum in
    this sense is "conserved in the open", while, as Einstein
    says, "it's an inertial system" not "it's a system of momentum"."

    Right, so it's math divorced from physical causation. The problem arises
    when it is imagined that relativity ever explains anything about
    causation. It only pretends to.

    "I wouldn't say that the reviewed authors "disproved"
    general relativity then - though they did raise many
    relevant points with regards to what's either over-
    or under-defined in the usual formalisms establishing
    the classical connection, that's about it."

    Yes, they have their own relativity theory, so their disproof is
    incomplete. I don't think there is anything to retain about relativity.
    It seems to me to be vacuous nonsense.

    p. 8 "Einstein wrote (1949):
    'There is a special type of space whose physical structure (field) can
    be
    presumed to be precisely known on the basis of the special theory of relativity.
    This is an empty space without electromagnetic field and without matter.
    It is
    completely determined by its metric property:'"

    Here, Einstein thinks that space can have a structure rather than
    contain a structure, so he is plainly guilty of the reification fallacy.
    Space contains fields, or it could include structures, but it cannot
    itself have a structure. He elaborates that he is speaking of space
    itself having a structure since he describes it as "empty," proving that
    he has unambiguously committed the reification fallacy. This is very unintelligent. This also involves a pretense of explaining causation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 21 14:25:33 2024
    Den 19.12.2024 01:10, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    "Logunov and Mestvirishvil disprove "general relativity""

    https://philarchive.org/archive/GUILAM  = pdf

    From where I quote:

    "The generalization of relativity made by Einstein to all
    movements: inertial, accelerated and gravitational, is that
    any accelerated frame can be considered as an inertial frame
    although under the action of a local homogeneous gravitational
    field and this frame in free fall as an inertial one."


    The author doesn't know what an accelerated frame is.

    A frame which is co moving with a free falling object
    (like an accelerometer) is a (locally) inertial frame.
    The accelerometer shows a proper acceleration = 0.

    A frame which is co moving with an accelerated object
    (like an accelerometer) is an accelerated frame.
    The accelerometer shows a proper acceleration =/= 0.

    What coordinate acceleration the objects may have relative
    to some gravitating mass (Earth?) is irrelevant.

    ---------

    continue quotation:
    "Therefore, the movements inertial, accelerated and gravitational
    homogeneous are relative states, simple effect of change of
    coordinates as if they really did not exist."

    If a body (like an accelerometer) is in accelerated motion
    the accelerometer shows a proper acceleration =/= 0.

    If a body (like an accelerometer) is in inertial motion
    the accelerometer show a proper acceleration = 0.

    The difference between inertial and accelerated motion is not
    "simple effect of change of coordinates".

    What kind of coordinate system the motion may be described in
    is irrelevant,

    -----------

    I could have quoted much more which illustrates the author's
    confusion, but I think this will do.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)