On 7/11/2020 12:54 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 10:06:44 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



    On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 8:50:50 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



        On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 8:05:28 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:

            On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 4:18 PM Alan Grayson
            <[email protected]> wrote:

                How, exactly, is the Principle of Equivalence used by
                Einstein to develop GR? TIA, AG



            This lecture by Sean Carroll should answer all your questions:

            URL: https://wp.me/p2WMeM-3vl

            Bruce


        I'll watch it tonight, but I think I've figured it out;
        specifically, the EP implies space-time is curved by the
        presence of mass/energy (and this is independent of the need
        to express the laws of physics in a coordinate independent way
        via tensors). AG


    Here's my reasoning regarding the EP; if an observer is in a box
    subject to uniform acceleration, a beam of light starting on the
    extreme left side (moving transverse or perpendicular to the
    acceleration vector), will hit a lower point on the right side,
    showing that uniform acceleration results in curved paths in
    space-time. But if this result is identical to gravity, locally,
    it means that curved paths in space-time are produced by, or are
    equivalent to gravity.


That makes no sense.  You're saying that because curved paths can be produced two different ways then they must always be produced the second way.


    BUT gravity is only observed in the presence of mass/energy. ERGO,
    the EP implies mass/energy curves space-time. AG


And that's not even true.  Gravitational waves can propagate thru the vacuum.  The Schwarzschild solution is for empty space.  De Sitter space is an empty cosmos.

Brent


For Bruce; so far I've gotten about two-thirds through Carroll's video. Will complete it this weekend. I sense a flaw in GR, suggested by the inclusion of G, the gravitational constant. How can a constant inferred from an approximate theory of gravity, Newton's Theory of Gravitation, be included in a presumed perfect theory of gravity, General Relativity? Don't you think something very subtle is awry here? AG
--
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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ffbbc9e9-1ba7-4410-8009-d76cf4ec12e6o%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ffbbc9e9-1ba7-4410-8009-d76cf4ec12e6o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e0765036-8fbc-813e-b4bd-80d4dd01d14b%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to