Re: "Logunov and Mestvirishvil disprove "general relativity""

On 12/18/2024 04:10 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

"Logunov and Mestvirishvil disprove "general relativity""
>
https://philarchive.org/archive/GUILAM  = pdf

I wouldn't say that "non-Euclidean geometries"
are "more geometrical than algebraic", when
they're pretty much purely algebraic, that
there are big differences between ALGEBRAIC geometers
and algebraic GEOMETERS in algebraic geometry.
Like, if you look at Vitali and Hausdorff,
and Banach and Tarski, Vitali and Hausdorff
are _geometers_.
It's a continuum mechanics and so geometry
is all about that.  Algebra is fundamentally "words".
Of course, Einstein's tensors their tensorial products
_are_ coordinate-free, _as_ they are covariant.  Of
course these are contrived for every possible situation,
yet given that then they're just smooth, and
add like vectors.
When they're contravariant then it's the same,
in its own way.  And, inverting contra- and covariant
is another thing again.
About inertia, inertia's plenty real when
the potential/potentialist fields are real.
"Lately Faddeev, 1982, has declared that in "general relativity" the
Hamiltonian formalism allows solving the problem of the impulse-energy
of the gravitational field. But Denisov and Logunov, 1982, and Denisov
and Solov'ev, 1983, have shown that this statement is wrong and
indicates that the author does not understand the essence of
the problem. It is sometimes said that within the framework of "general
relativity" the tensor of the impulse-energy gravitational field can be
constructed by replacing the ordinary derivatives in the expression for
the pseudotensor with covariant derivatives with
respect to "the Minkowski metric". These statements, however, are wrong.
In "general relativity", in contrast to RTG, where Minkowski's
space-time occupies the center of the stage, there can be no global
Cartesian coordinates and, therefore, in principle we cannot say what
shape the Minkowski y ik metric has in "General relativity" for a given
solution to the Hilbert-Einstein equations.""
-- ibid
"... in GTR, [...] the Riemannian space curvature tensor must be considered here as a physical characteristic of the field."
-- ibid
The Riemann metric and Riemann tensor for Riemannian geometry
is just a neat way to make a simplification of an idealistic
gravitational well involving a large central body and a
small satellite.
""Einstein believed that in GTR the gravitational field along with matter must obey a
conservation law of some kind (Einstein, 1914):
... it goes without saying that we must demand that matter and the
gravitational field taken together satisfy the laws of conservation of energy and momentum."
Now, "momentum", is not necessarily what people think it is,
since in kinematics it results _exchange_, so, momentum in
this sense is "conserved in the open", while, as Einstein
says, "it's an inertial system" not "it's a system of momentum".
Most people have no idea that could possibly not be a thing.
"Formula (2.5) is also used in GTR to derive "integral conservation laws for the momentum-energy" of matter and the gravitational field taken together."
..., "-energy", see.
That makes it more complicated "f = ma" yet, not really so much so,
in terms of conserving energy, because it's the _potentials_ that
make "f(t) = ma(t)" and so momentum then may get washed in the mix.
Einstein's much later notions than those quoted, of
the _spatial_ for GR and _spacial_, for SR, help
effect to reflect on differences, about "the field".
"The unity of Riemannian metrics and gravity is the
fundamental principle underlying the theory of general
relativity."
That's sort of disagreeable, since it's "formally un-linear
mass-energy equivalency" and "vanishing non-zero cosmological
constant" that are "the mathematical principles making the
theory of general relativity" when the Riemann metric is
just a neat model of a gravitational well, it's classical
and one of Newton's laws is all.
"The introduction of the Riemannian space allowed the scalar curvature R
to be used as a function of the Lagrangian and, with the help of the
principle of least action, to obtain the Hilbert-Einstein equation. Thus
the construction of Einstein's theory of general relativity was completed."
Yeah, surprisingly, or so it may seem, most people have no idea
that classical mechanics itself has any issues at all, since
the Lagrangian and that the theories of potentials are at least
as old as dynamis and dunamis, that it's energy and entelechy,
why "rest-exchange momentum" is really a thing: more about
immovable and unstoppable than the pebble and the well, or
the apple, and Newton's interrupted nod.
Levers and all, ..., where "relativity" is
"anything's a fulcrumless lever".
I wouldn't say that the reviewed authors "disproved"
general relativity then - though they did raise many
relevant points with regards to what's either over-
or under-defined in the usual formalisms establishing
the classical connection, that's about it.