On 4/16/2019 7:56 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



    On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> 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


*This is straight out of the "shut up and calculate" school, and I don't completely buy it. E.g., the Principle of Relativity and Least Action Principle give strong indications of not only how the universe works, but why. That is, they're somewhat explanatory in nature. AG*

Fine, then take them as explanations.  But to ask that they be explained is to misunderstand their status.  It's possible that they could be explained; but only by finding a more fundamental theory that includes them as consequences or special cases.  Whatever theory is fundamental cannot have an explanation in the sense you want because then it would not be fundamental.

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