Re: Steel Man of Einstein & Relativity.

Le 09/09/2024 à 05:33, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :

Yes, it is idiotic, not only because it pretends curved space explains
the cause of gravity. This is typical of the pretentious nature of
relativity. The equivalence principle also pretends to explain the cause
of gravity and does not in the slightest. The above-cited article
discusses how Einstein modifies Newton's idea about inertial motion,
claiming that gravity is a sort of inertial motion. Since gravity causes
accelerating motion, I beg to differ. The second reason it is idiotic is
that it all rests on presuming gravity can be explained similarly to
electromagnetism. Einstein adopted this from Heaviside's 1893 work. Now
that the unified field theory has "failed" [-Britannica], there are few
grounds to pretend gravity can be explained this way. Yet some persist,
as with gravitoelectromagnetism (abbreviated GEM), attempting to find
evidence from gravity probe B. Gravity and electromagnetism have little
in common. Only that they are both forces obeying the inverse square
rule; otherwise, they are very different. One affects only some
materials, while the other affects all matter. One can be shielded while
the other cannot. Since gravity is not electromagnetism, its speed is
not c. Laplace and Van Flandern estimate its speed to be near infinite
enough to avoid any appreciable effect of angular momentum. If the speed
of gravity were c, the angular momentum would be such that the Earth
would move out twice its distance from the Sun in just 1,200 years.
Since gravity is not electromagnetism, its speed must be millions of
times that of light.

The idea of ​​the deformation of space by bodies has always amused me.
Poincaré starts from the idea that photons are perhaps not little things that surf on the ether or in the ether, and he comes to pose a magnificent principle: there is no need for the ether to explain things, and it seems that there is no ether, and that the void is really empty.
Einstein modifies the thought by reintroducing a kind of ether that curves space with its little muscular fingers.
This is not very rational.
As for two things: the curvature of the sun's rays in the perisolar atmosphere, in view of the enormous ejections of matter and gas that we see, is it not precisely due to diffractive effects?
The same goes for galaxies, which must attract a little gas on the periphery around them (tiny quantities but over billions of millions of kilometers). Finally, the precession of Mercury's perihelion... Isn't a simple RR effect possible? Either because time does not pass in the same way (Mercury's faster speed), or because in Mercury's frame of reference, the Sun performs a revolution different from the reciprocal (since the frame of reference is no longer quite the same).
R.H.