The gravitational field as a preferred frame
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Quantum Field Theory's Howler
Next: ben6993 is a LIAR.
From: Androcles on 8 Jun 2010 08:46 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:e912d7a0-b826-4200-8599-e3da51a88f75(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 8, 10:08 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > - the way I see it, is that there is a preferred > background, the average mass distribution of the > universe, but that all attempts to measure it are doomed > to fail because of the nature of the gamma factor, which > has absolute and relative properties. In what way "preferred" if we don't need to prefer it? Probably you meant "absolute". Regards, Harald =========================================== The preferred background, stationary frame, stationary inertial frame of reference, absolute frame, stationary system, it's all the same animal. "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' -- Einstein, who gave it preference. Hayek has it wrong, though, it is the frame in which the total of momenta of everything is zero. Disregards, Androcles
From: BURT on 8 Jun 2010 14:47 On Jun 7, 11:04 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background-independent > > <Start extract> > > The resolution to the hole argument (mainly taken from Rovelli's book) > is as follows. As GR does not determine the distance between spacetime > points, how the gravitational and matter fields are located over > spacetime, and so the values they take at spacetime points, can have > no physical meaning. What GR does determine, however, are the mutual > relations that exist between the gravitational field and the matter > fields (i.e. the value the gravitational field takes where the matter > field takes such and such value). From these mutual relations we can > form a notion of matter being located with respect to the > gravitational field and vice-versa, (see Rovelli's for exposition). > What Einstein discovered was that physical entities are located with > respect to one another only, independent of the spacetime manifold. > This independence is background independence. > > Since the Hole Argument is a direct consequence of the general > covariance of GR, this led Einstein to state: > > "That this requirement of general covariance, which takes away from > space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity, is a natural > one, ..."[3] > > <End extract> > > If one accepts the above statements, then motion cannot be relative to > space or the spacetime manifold, as the latter were understood by > Einstein. > > However, if we consider the phrase, > > "....From these mutual relations we can form a notion of matter being > located with respect to the gravitational field and vice-versa..." > > then it is clear that matter can be in motion relative to the > gravitational field, which if considered to be a preferred frame, > would allow such motion to be considered absolute motion. > > Even more interesting however is that if Einstein's concept of space > has had taken away from it "the last remnant of physical objectivity", > how are we to explain the obvious fact that we move around in 3 > dimensional space all the time? > > Isn't the fact that we can do so, sufficient evidence of the physical > objectivity of 3-dimensional space? > > Putting two and two together, there seems only one way to reconcile > these notions. > > If the space, time and spacetime manifold of GR lack physical > objectivity, then the 3-dimensional space that we experience as > physically objective, must be synonymous with the gravitational field. > > It then follows that absolute motion relative to the field is > synonymous with absolute motion relative to this physically objective > space. > > Surfer The gravity frame+ has a geometric and energy center. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 8 Jun 2010 19:20 On Jun 8, 11:47 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 7, 11:04 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background-independent > > > <Start extract> > > > The resolution to the hole argument (mainly taken from Rovelli's book) > > is as follows. As GR does not determine the distance between spacetime > > points, how the gravitational and matter fields are located over > > spacetime, and so the values they take at spacetime points, can have > > no physical meaning. What GR does determine, however, are the mutual > > relations that exist between the gravitational field and the matter > > fields (i.e. the value the gravitational field takes where the matter > > field takes such and such value). From these mutual relations we can > > form a notion of matter being located with respect to the > > gravitational field and vice-versa, (see Rovelli's for exposition). > > What Einstein discovered was that physical entities are located with > > respect to one another only, independent of the spacetime manifold. > > This independence is background independence. > > > Since the Hole Argument is a direct consequence of the general > > covariance of GR, this led Einstein to state: > > > "That this requirement of general covariance, which takes away from > > space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity, is a natural > > one, ..."[3] > > > <End extract> > > > If one accepts the above statements, then motion cannot be relative to > > space or the spacetime manifold, as the latter were understood by > > Einstein. > > > However, if we consider the phrase, > > > "....From these mutual relations we can form a notion of matter being > > located with respect to the gravitational field and vice-versa..." > > > then it is clear that matter can be in motion relative to the > > gravitational field, which if considered to be a preferred frame, > > would allow such motion to be considered absolute motion. > > > Even more interesting however is that if Einstein's concept of space > > has had taken away from it "the last remnant of physical objectivity", > > how are we to explain the obvious fact that we move around in 3 > > dimensional space all the time? > > > Isn't the fact that we can do so, sufficient evidence of the physical > > objectivity of 3-dimensional space? > > > Putting two and two together, there seems only one way to reconcile > > these notions. > > > If the space, time and spacetime manifold of GR lack physical > > objectivity, then the 3-dimensional space that we experience as > > physically objective, must be synonymous with the gravitational field. > > > It then follows that absolute motion relative to the field is > > synonymous with absolute motion relative to this physically objective > > space. > > > Surfer > > The gravity frame+ has a geometric and energy center. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It has a center in space geometry energy density and center of whole strength. Mitch Raemsch
From: xxein on 8 Jun 2010 22:44 On Jun 8, 6:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 8, 2:04 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background-independent > > > <Start extract> > > > The resolution to the hole argument (mainly taken from Rovelli's book) > > is as follows. As GR does not determine the distance between spacetime > > points, how the gravitational and matter fields are located over > > spacetime, and so the values they take at spacetime points, can have > > no physical meaning. What GR does determine, however, are the mutual > > relations that exist between the gravitational field and the matter > > fields (i.e. the value the gravitational field takes where the matter > > field takes such and such value). From these mutual relations we can > > form a notion of matter being located with respect to the > > gravitational field and vice-versa, (see Rovelli's for exposition). > > What Einstein discovered was that physical entities are located with > > respect to one another only, independent of the spacetime manifold. > > This independence is background independence. > > > Since the Hole Argument is a direct consequence of the general > > covariance of GR, this led Einstein to state: > > > "That this requirement of general covariance, which takes away from > > space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity, is a natural > > one, ..."[3] > > > <End extract> > > > If one accepts the above statements, then motion cannot be relative to > > space or the spacetime manifold, as the latter were understood by > > Einstein. > > > However, if we consider the phrase, > > > "....From these mutual relations we can form a notion of matter being > > located with respect to the gravitational field and vice-versa..." > > > then it is clear that matter can be in motion relative to the > > gravitational field, which if considered to be a preferred frame, > > would allow such motion to be considered absolute motion. > > > Even more interesting however is that if Einstein's concept of space > > has had taken away from it "the last remnant of physical objectivity", > > how are we to explain the obvious fact that we move around in 3 > > dimensional space all the time? > > > Isn't the fact that we can do so, sufficient evidence of the physical > > objectivity of 3-dimensional space? > > > Putting two and two together, there seems only one way to reconcile > > these notions. > > > If the space, time and spacetime manifold of GR lack physical > > objectivity, then the 3-dimensional space that we experience as > > physically objective, must be synonymous with the gravitational field. > > > It then follows that absolute motion relative to the field is > > synonymous with absolute motion relative to this physically objective > > space. > > > Surfer > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... > disregarding the causes which condition its state." > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > aether's state of displacement. > > The aether is not at rest when displaced. > The aether 'displaces back'. > The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: Now you are getting close.
From: BURT on 8 Jun 2010 23:22
On Jun 8, 3:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 8, 2:04 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background-independent > > > <Start extract> > > > The resolution to the hole argument (mainly taken from Rovelli's book) > > is as follows. As GR does not determine the distance between spacetime > > points, how the gravitational and matter fields are located over > > spacetime, and so the values they take at spacetime points, can have > > no physical meaning. What GR does determine, however, are the mutual > > relations that exist between the gravitational field and the matter > > fields (i.e. the value the gravitational field takes where the matter > > field takes such and such value). From these mutual relations we can > > form a notion of matter being located with respect to the > > gravitational field and vice-versa, (see Rovelli's for exposition). > > What Einstein discovered was that physical entities are located with > > respect to one another only, independent of the spacetime manifold. > > This independence is background independence. > > > Since the Hole Argument is a direct consequence of the general > > covariance of GR, this led Einstein to state: > > > "That this requirement of general covariance, which takes away from > > space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity, is a natural > > one, ..."[3] > > > <End extract> > > > If one accepts the above statements, then motion cannot be relative to > > space or the spacetime manifold, as the latter were understood by > > Einstein. > > > However, if we consider the phrase, > > > "....From these mutual relations we can form a notion of matter being > > located with respect to the gravitational field and vice-versa..." > > > then it is clear that matter can be in motion relative to the > > gravitational field, which if considered to be a preferred frame, > > would allow such motion to be considered absolute motion. > > > Even more interesting however is that if Einstein's concept of space > > has had taken away from it "the last remnant of physical objectivity", > > how are we to explain the obvious fact that we move around in 3 > > dimensional space all the time? > > > Isn't the fact that we can do so, sufficient evidence of the physical > > objectivity of 3-dimensional space? > > > Putting two and two together, there seems only one way to reconcile > > these notions. > > > If the space, time and spacetime manifold of GR lack physical > > objectivity, then the 3-dimensional space that we experience as > > physically objective, must be synonymous with the gravitational field. > > > It then follows that absolute motion relative to the field is > > synonymous with absolute motion relative to this physically objective > > space. > > > Surfer > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... > disregarding the causes which condition its state." > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > aether's state of displacement. > > The aether is not at rest when displaced. > The aether 'displaces back'. > The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Aether is round. Mitch Raemsch |