On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



    On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



        On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:


        On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



            On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:


            On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent
            wrote:



                On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



                    He might have been referring to a
                    transformation to a tangent space where the
                    metric tensor is diagonalized and its
                    derivative at that point in spacetime is zero.
                    Does this make any sense?

                    Sort of.



                Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given
                coordinate system and some arbitrary point in a
                non-empty spacetime. So spacetime has a non zero
                curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor
                is generally non-zero at that arbitrary point,
                however small we assume the region around that
                point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to
                the tangent space at that point to diagonalize the
                metric tensor and have its derivative as zero at
                that point. Does THIS make sense? AG

                Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic
                of a Riemannian space.

                Brent


            But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime
            points by transforming coordinates has the result of
            putting the test particle in local free fall, when it
            wasn't prior to the transformation? AG

            It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has EM
            forces on it, it will deviate from the geodesic in the
            tangent space coordinates.  The transformation is just
            adapting the coordinates to the local free-fall which
            removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.

            Brent


        In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces
        acting on test particle, I assume the trajectory appears
        identical to an external observer, before and after
        coordinate transformation to the tangent plane at some point;
        all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. If
        this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can
        remove the gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG

        You're looking at it the wrong way around.  There never were
        any gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate
        system made fictitious forces appear; just like when you use a
        merry-go-round as your reference frame you get coriolis forces.


    If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of
    coordinate system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate
    system) how does GR explain motion? Test particles move on
    geodesics in the absence of non-gravitational forces, but why do
    they move at all? AG


Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG

The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.
    --—John von Neumann


    Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious
    gravitational force, and how the other forces function; EM,
    Strong, and Weak, which apparently can't be removed by changes in
    coordinates systems. AG


It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of the gravitational force with the other forces. Maybe gravity is just different. AG

That's one possibility, e.g entropic gravity.


        What is gets you is it enforces and explains the equivalence
        principle.  And of course Einstein's theory also correctly
        predicted the bending of light, gravitational waves, time
        dilation and the precession of the perhelion of Mercury.


    I was referring earlier just to the transformation to the tangent
    space; what specifically does it buy us; why would we want to
    execute this particular transformation? AG


For one thing, you know the acceleration due to non-gravitational forces in this frame.  So you can transform to it, put in the accelerations, and transform back.  So all the "gravitation" is in the transform.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to