| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astro Forum » Poll: General Relativity does not reduce to Newtonian... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ----... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Forwarded from:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_thread/thread/1a58926299ddfc01
The author of the report affirms that General Relativity does not
reduce to Newtonian Gravity.
The following general relativists AGREE:
- Miguel Alcubierre Moya
- Joy Christian
- Eric Poisson
- Yurij Barishev
- Matej Pavsic
- Uncle Al
The following general relativists are in DISCORD:
- David A. Smith
- Yousuf Khan
- Eric Gisse
The following general relativists still DOUBT:
- Tom Roberts
What is your vote? Any suggestion to achieve consensus among
general relativists? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 13, 9:12 am, ---- <nore... at (no spam) canonicalscience.org> wrote:
[quote:cdfd480c22]The author of the report affirms that General Relativity
does not reduce to Newtonian Gravity.
....
What is your vote? Any suggestion to achieve
consensus among general relativists?
[/quote:cdfd480c22]
How about Einstein:
“Watch the stars, and from them learn. To the Master's honor all must
turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's
ground.” Seems like he is indicating that he expects Newton to stay
the "good first approximation".
To "reduce" GR to Newtonian gravity, you make simplifications that
achieve flat spacetime, and prevent any reasonable possibility of
describing curvature of light by gravity.
For the record, I am not a "general relativist". And by the way, you
can distribute a post to up to 4 or 5 related newsgroups, and not be a
spammer. Making individual posts is a pain for you, and disallows
posterity from getting a coherent whole in responses.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote:
[...]
[quote:fdb36d543c]For the record, I am not a "general relativist". And by the way, you
can distribute a post to up to 4 or 5 related newsgroups, and not be a
spammer. Making individual posts is a pain for you, and disallows
posterity from getting a coherent whole in responses.
David A. Smith
[/quote:fdb36d543c]
This is Juan's latest attempt at trying to establish some sort of
"consensus" that his ideas are right / have merit / aren't blindingly
stupid. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Roberts... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote:
[quote:3e72c47d5a]To "reduce" GR to Newtonian gravity, you make simplifications that
achieve flat spacetime,
[/quote:3e72c47d5a]
Not quite. All that is actually required is to achieve APPROXIMATELY flat SPACE
(not spacetime), which is close enough to being flat that existing experiments
and observations are consistent with the approximation. GR does this.
[These are not "simplifications", they are approximations --
the implications are quite different.]
This is where Juan failed before, insisting on an exactly flat space, rather
than an approximately flat space. Without seeing his "report", I don't know
whether this is still his failure, but I suspect it is.
[quote:3e72c47d5a]and prevent any reasonable possibility of
describing curvature of light by gravity.
[/quote:3e72c47d5a]
Not true. Einstein's prediction of light bending by the sun was done in the
appropriate approximation.
Another problem with this "report" (or rather, its executive summary): the
proposal to require all new theories to RIGOROUSLY reduce to existing theories
is just plain stupid -- human history is not a valid constraint on either nature
or physical theories about nature.
[quote:3e72c47d5a]For the record, I am not a "general relativist".
[/quote:3e72c47d5a]
Neither am I. And I suspect that many/most physicists working in the field would
not self-identify with that term, either.
Tom Roberts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ----... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 13 oct, 22:12, Tom Roberts <tjrob... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote:709e1c30df]dlzc wrote:
To "reduce" GR to Newtonian gravity, you make simplifications that
achieve flat spacetime,
Not quite. All that is actually required is to achieve APPROXIMATELY flat SPACE
(not spacetime), which is close enough to being flat that existing experiments
and observations are consistent with the approximation. GR does this.
[These are not "simplifications", they are approximations --
the implications are quite different.]
This is where Juan failed before, insisting on an exactly flat space, rather
than an approximately flat space. Without seeing his "report", I don't know
whether this is still his failure, but I suspect it is.
and prevent any reasonable possibility of
describing curvature of light by gravity.
Not true. Einstein's prediction of light bending by the sun was done in the
appropriate approximation.
Another problem with this "report" (or rather, its executive summary): the
proposal to require all new theories to RIGOROUSLY reduce to existing theories
is just plain stupid -- human history is not a valid constraint on either nature
or physical theories about nature.
For the record, I am not a "general relativist".
Neither am I. And I suspect that many/most physicists working in the field would
not self-identify with that term, either.
Tom Roberts
[/quote:709e1c30df]
The Report and its Executive Summary do not say what you wrote above. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 13, 9:14 am, ---- <nore... at (no spam) canonicalscience.org> wrote:
[quote:1e879284ff]Forwarded from:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_thread/thread/1a58926...
The author of the report affirms that General Relativity does not
reduce to Newtonian Gravity.
The following general relativists AGREE:
- Miguel Alcubierre Moya
- Joy Christian
- Eric Poisson
- Yurij Barishev
- Matej Pavsic
- Uncle Al
The following general relativists are in DISCORD:
- David A. Smith
- Yousuf Khan
- Eric Gisse
The following general relativists still DOUBT:
- Tom Roberts
What is your vote? Any suggestion to achieve consensus among
general relativists?
[/quote:1e879284ff]
The general failsafe rule is to follow the money, because any
agreement among peers would likely put a stop to that flow of public
loot.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:43 pm
|
|