Discussion:
"Logunov and Mestvirishvil disprove "general relativity""
Add Reply
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-12-19 00:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Logunov and Mestvirishvil disprove "general relativity""

https://philarchive.org/archive/GUILAM = pdf
Ross Finlayson
2024-12-19 02:27:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"Logunov and Mestvirishvil disprove "general relativity""
https://philarchive.org/archive/GUILAM = pdf
I wouldn't say that "non-Euclidean geometries"
are "more geometrical than algebraic", when
they're pretty much purely algebraic, that
there are big differences between ALGEBRAIC geometers
and algebraic GEOMETERS in algebraic geometry.

Like, if you look at Vitali and Hausdorff,
and Banach and Tarski, Vitali and Hausdorff
are _geometers_.

It's a continuum mechanics and so geometry
is all about that. Algebra is fundamentally "words".


Of course, Einstein's tensors their tensorial products
_are_ coordinate-free, _as_ they are covariant. Of
course these are contrived for every possible situation,
yet given that then they're just smooth, and
add like vectors.

When they're contravariant then it's the same,
in its own way. And, inverting contra- and covariant
is another thing again.


About inertia, inertia's plenty real when
the potential/potentialist fields are real.

"Lately Faddeev, 1982, has declared that in "general relativity" the
Hamiltonian formalism allows solving the problem of the impulse-energy
of the gravitational field. But Denisov and Logunov, 1982, and Denisov
and Solov'ev, 1983, have shown that this statement is wrong and
indicates that the author does not understand the essence of
the problem. It is sometimes said that within the framework of "general
relativity" the tensor of the impulse-energy gravitational field can be
constructed by replacing the ordinary derivatives in the expression for
the pseudotensor with covariant derivatives with
respect to "the Minkowski metric". These statements, however, are wrong.
In "general relativity", in contrast to RTG, where Minkowski's
space-time occupies the center of the stage, there can be no global
Cartesian coordinates and, therefore, in principle we cannot say what
shape the Minkowski y ik metric has in "General relativity" for a given
solution to the Hilbert-Einstein equations.""
-- ibid


"... in GTR, [...] the Riemannian space curvature tensor must be
considered here as a physical characteristic of the field."
-- ibid



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.


""Einstein believed that in GTR the gravitational field along with
matter must obey a
conservation law of some kind (Einstein, 1914):
... it goes without saying that we must demand that matter and the
gravitational field taken together satisfy the laws of conservation of
energy and momentum."



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".


Most people have no idea that could possibly not be a thing.


"Formula (2.5) is also used in GTR to derive "integral conservation laws
for the momentum-energy" of matter and the gravitational field taken
together."


..., "-energy", see.



That makes it more complicated "f = ma" yet, not really so much so,
in terms of conserving energy, because it's the _potentials_ that
make "f(t) = ma(t)" and so momentum then may get washed in the mix.


Einstein's much later notions than those quoted, of
the _spatial_ for GR and _spacial_, for SR, help
effect to reflect on differences, about "the field".




"The unity of Riemannian metrics and gravity is the
fundamental principle underlying the theory of general
relativity."



That's sort of disagreeable, since it's "formally un-linear
mass-energy equivalency" and "vanishing non-zero cosmological
constant" that are "the mathematical principles making the
theory of general relativity" when the Riemann metric is
just a neat model of a gravitational well, it's classical
and one of Newton's laws is all.


"The introduction of the Riemannian space allowed the scalar curvature R
to be used as a function of the Lagrangian and, with the help of the
principle of least action, to obtain the Hilbert-Einstein equation. Thus
the construction of Einstein's theory of general relativity was completed."



Yeah, surprisingly, or so it may seem, most people have no idea
that classical mechanics itself has any issues at all, since
the Lagrangian and that the theories of potentials are at least
as old as dynamis and dunamis, that it's energy and entelechy,
why "rest-exchange momentum" is really a thing: more about
immovable and unstoppable than the pebble and the well, or
the apple, and Newton's interrupted nod.

Levers and all, ..., where "relativity" is
"anything's a fulcrumless lever".


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.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-12-19 21:27:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"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.
Paul B. Andersen
2024-12-21 13:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"Logunov and Mestvirishvil disprove "general relativity""
https://philarchive.org/archive/GUILAMĀ  = 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/
Loading...