Reply to comment

David wrote:

“One of the reasons I insist that all your terms be strictly defined, or 'nailed down', is because of the way you try to weasel out of any argument by apparently changing the definitions on a whim (changing the rules).”

That’s a strong charge. I’m fairly sure you’d be deeply offended if I accused you of “weaseling.” It might, at least, be more appropriate if you leveled it as a conclusion rather than an opening.

“I ‘gravitate’ to distinguishing between geodesic vs. non-geodesic motion because it is well defined (determinable, at least in principle) in all cases (regardless of the nature of the curvature, or lack thereof). The only ‘difficulty of determining in some cases, by observation, whether a body is deviating from geodesic motion’ is in terms of experimental accuracy, as with any observational measurement.”

I’ll quote you from 10/1/2007, where: “one can interpret them in other "reference frames" (general coordinate systems) wherein one will ‘see’ accelerations that one can interpret (admittedly from a standpoint instilled from Newtonian mechanics) as coming from ‘forces’.”

I wouldn’t call it “weaseling”, but you’ve found my use of uniform, or geodesic motion grounds for digression, then later, my defense of not using it as inconsistency (or worse) and grounds for confusion.

“Your point 2 looses almost all it's power because it is not general enough. I have tried to help you see how this can be completely generalized (up to a point), depending on how you wish to ‘define’ the ‘existence’ of a "gravitational field". Unfortunately, instead, you have tried to weasel out of definitions. You have refused to learn greater generalizations. You simply don't appear able to move from your comfort zone in the very specialized subset of circumstances you find on and very near this ball of rock we reside upon, while the universe is far more vast and wondrous. (If you desire, I, and others, can help you take off your blinders, but we can't force you.)”

I would think that you would justify your charge of “weaseling” by giving some example of the sort of generalization you have in mind, without being asked. But please, pretend you don’t think I’m a weaseler, or please, assume there is someone else who would benefit, and provide an example. But please, don’t let it be some mathematical construct that remains hypothetical, or that has no empirical basis, or that presumes an issue that I’m calling in question. A real-world generalization should be easy to describe in real-world terms.

“there are indeed ways of looking at things such that [gravitation] is, at least as much as any other inertial (pseudo, ‘false’) ‘force’ may be considered to be a ‘force’. (Note that these ‘inertial forces’ are not related to your ‘inertial acceleration’.”

I’m sorry, that’s incorrect. (I assume you are referring to centrifugal, centripetal, and Coriolis “forces” – again you’re not being specific.) I’ve pointed this out before and you haven’t responded. All of them are manifestations of force, even though not “forces” themselves, and they can be identified as “my” inertial accelerations from any coordinate system, in a controlled experiment, as inside a box. Gravitation is uniquely different, as I've shown by the behavior of test bodies in a controlled experiment in a box.

“there are ways of approaching all the ‘true’ forces (electromagnetism… and the nuclear forces [week and strong]) such that they are just as much ‘geometry’ as is gravitation. What then? Now what appear to be deviations from geodesic motion (deviations from ‘free fall’) are simply new geodesics seen by certain types of particles. (Is this the way the universe works, or just a mathematical trick we physicists have dreamed up? Only specific testable predictions and experiments will ever determine that.)”

Well, we should await confirmation, shouldn’t we? And given the implausibility of geometric distortions that affect different particles different ways, the hypothetical mathematics needn’t divert us from real-world considerations, should it?

“there are certain conclusions you arrive at, without justification, that are untenable. At least if the results/predictions of General Relativity are correct (as opposed to just certain interpretations, or ways of thinking about its nature)… unless one argues that the results/predictions of General Relativity are not correct. This is the point where your arguments cannot be made irrefutable.”

What criticisms of GR have I made that violate its confirmations? Please be specific.

“you have chosen to cast me in the role of your enemy, nemesis, and a ‘defender of the faith’.”

I haven’t accused you of being any of those. I’ve disagreed with you. I’ve engaged you in ways that I hope and believe have been more respectful of you than you have been of me.