General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.


It ditches it.

According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.

This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.

General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is time dilating.
This makes the cause absolute motion and not relative motion.

Therefore, GR ditches SR, which is a distinctly different and false
theory.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
It ditches it.
According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative
motion per se.
This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory.
General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is time dilating.
This makes the cause absolute motion and not relative motion.
Therefore, GR ditches SR, which is a distinctly different and false
theory.

Einstein just calls it "spatial" for GR and a separate, though
concident and indifferent, 'in the limit', "spacial" for SR.

It's so though that Einstein already long ago arrived
at "SR is local" because "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local",
according to his "the time" representing Einstein's clock hypothesis.

Of course that's not the same as "1905 SR" nor "1915 GR",
his circa 1935 "Relativity theory (motion)".

Anyways Einstein already has "GR first", though most followers
are ignorant of it.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of
relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
is a part of GR, not SR.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Ross: Well, thanks, but then Einstein is spouting gibberish because you
must be taken to be saying Einstein claimed time dilation is caused by
"spatial." In any case, all of it is stupid and ignorant pseudoscience
that you retail in your gibberish or Einstein's gibberish. Ross, come
out of it!!! Come to your senses.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Ross: Well, thanks, but then Einstein is spouting gibberish because you
must be taken to be saying Einstein claimed time dilation is caused by
"spatial." In any case, all of it is stupid and ignorant pseudoscience
that you retail in your gibberish or Einstein's gibberish. Ross, come
out of it!!! Come to your senses.

It's appreciated to be sensible, yet it's length-contraction &
time-dilation only together what make space-contraction, and
clocks only slow or meet, that FitzGerald is to whom is
accredited space-contraction, who also has a lot going on
with the relation to the electromagnetic developments of
Faraday, Heaviside, Larmor, and Maxwell, then as with regards
to SR-ians and GR-ians that Einstein resulted a GR-ian like
other sensible people.

See, this still can make for a theory where the linear is
yet Galilean as its own Lorentzian with "frame-dragging"
being real enough the space-frames and frame-spaces,
and the "turning worlds" those where all things orbit
each other as much as track the geodesy - which of course
is undefined its curvature per Space-Time at all and
"is what it is", in GR - that massy bodies are mostly space -
then while also the rotational is the more usually Lorentzian,
and its SR-ian magnetic moments are as so associated with
it that way, the space-contraction is in it, as with regards
to notions of DesCartes and Kelvin the vorticial, the,
"un-linear", with regards to the linear.

Which is always nominally non-zero, ....

So, this speaks to some of what you note as perceived deficiencies
in the theory, while making a better one - of course the mathematics
has its own work to do to get improved when 0 m/s = infinity s/m.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Absolute motion can cause some rates of change to alter, but can't cause
all rates to be modified in unison. GR is false.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Absolute motion can cause some rates of change to alter, but can't cause
all rates to be modified in unison. GR is false.

You mean the one _without_ a continuous space-time or the one _with_?

Einstein's "Relativity theory" has one _with_.

Then how that works out with regards to formalisms
like Riemann metric and "what tensors" is under-defined
anyways: what with regards to "space-frames and frame-spaces",
an actual _difference_ linear/rotational,
real space-contraction, a fall-gravity,
mass/energy relativistic equivalence as rotational,
a vanishing yet non-zero cosmological constant,
with regards to that Einstein's relativity theory
is a theory with one negative stipulation:
that motion is relative.

Doesn't say anything about acceleration, either,
then that the equivalence principle is another
thing that varies in terms of there being absolute _space_ (GR).

Where, at least there's a universal _time_.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not so particularly attached
to one or the other interpretation. These though
seem best.


Least action, ....


Of course _mathematics_ is behind too, don't forget that
foundations of _mathematics_ need improvement when looking
to foundations of _physics_.