Riemann's Problems with curved space

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />Just as FTL transmission of information is a definitive and convincing test to distinguish SR and LR, does such a test exist for field and particle theories?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not seeing a hard-and-fast distinction between the two. MM indicates that the gravitational potential field consists of elysons, with the next major medium down being gravitons. So in physics (unlike math), anything capable of exerting a force must be material and tangible, and fields must therefore ultimately consist of waves and/or particles.

Perhaps you are asking for a way to distinguish between field GR and geometric GR? In the former, gravity is a classical force associated with a potential field (that we now call the elysium). In geometric GR, gravity is just geometry, and "spacetime" curvature is responsible for motion. Both interpretations are based on the same math, but the latter interpretation did not really catch on until the 1970s. My recent paper with Vigier in <i>Foundations of Physics</i> explains why geometroc GR is now falsified for violating two physical principles -- causality and no creation ex nihilo. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please pardon my sloppiness. I meant to say "geometric" instead of "field". Again back to the physical principles, I think you'll agree that if appeals to violation of physical principle were sufficient, modern physics would not be in the state that its in today. Some additional argument or line of reasoning may need to be put forward to advance your view.


JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />Some additional argument or line of reasoning may need to be put forward to advance your view.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I consider the argument advanced in <i>Dark Matter...</i> sufficient, and many readers seem to get it totally even though I now see ways to improve the presentation. Beyond that, what is needed is to put courses in logic back into school curricula. Ideally, that would be mandatory. Everyone could benefit from appreciating the rules of logic and from an understanding of logical fallacies, so common in politics and advertising. -|Tom|-

Locic violates the rules of QM and BB so if you want to go back to logic what happens to great systems like QM? All the masters of QM will be opposed and believers in BB theory will be opposed too.

Tom,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
I consider the argument advanced in <i>Dark Matter...</i> sufficient, and many readers seem to get it totally even though I now see ways to improve the presentation. Beyond that, what is needed is to put courses in logic back into school curricula. Ideally, that would be mandatory. Everyone could benefit from appreciating the rules of logic and from an understanding of logical fallacies, so common in politics and advertising. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In statistics this is referred to as a self-selecting sample - your readership is going to be dominated by openminded, scientifically literate or semi-literate people, probably already uncomfortable with popular cosmology and looking for alternatives - so the fact they seem to "get it" does not imply that your argument is sufficient to convince those that do not fall into that group. You are certainly correct about the lack of emphasis in basic reasoning skills in school curricula and its social implications, but it's the very well educated (over-educated?) who dominate the sciences and thus have the most influence over the direction of inquiry. These people should not suffer from a deficiency in their ability (though, arguably, their willingness) to reason. In fact, they should be quite proficient. Again, I conclude that you may need to change tactics. Most theories gain acceptance only when they supply the solution to an important unsolved problem. My advice, for what its worth, is to find such a problem and solve it.


JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />My advice, for what its worth, is to find such a problem and solve it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I appreciate the suggestion. I'm currently involved in playing up the ability to communicate and travel FTL as one significant difference MM can make to the future of humanity. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Locic violates the rules of QM and BB so if you want to go back to logic what happens to great systems like QM? All the masters of QM will be opposed and believers in BB theory will be opposed too.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why do you call QM a "great system"? It has had predictive success within a limited context, but leaves us with a contradiction, and concludes "there is no deep reality" to the world we see. That's harsh.

And of course, my negative opinions about BB are well known. BB can claim nothing at all in the way of a predictive success.

Of course, it might have been true about "no deep reality" -- but not when we can see another approach that eliminates the contradiction and needs no miracles. So ultimately, all of us will divide into those who need miracles and those who don't. I have no problem with each group going its own way. -|Tom|-