Recent content by Killtech

Sorry, i cannot see how with the interpretation you propose makes Newtons theory at all usable. Consider a clock ##r_1## on earths surface and another one ##r_2## in orbit, and a last one ##r_3## passing earth with relativistic speed, all of them measuring the time it takes earth spin one full...

As far as i read Newton's theory it mainly uses coordinate time and hence makes only predictions on that. If we have an minimal interpretation how to interpret coordinates, we don't need another representation of time, because everything is already perfectly specified by coordinates. Hence...

Which i did. Use the Ctrl+F function to highlight the word "original" in your browser if you wish to check. Same goes to when i refer to Newton explicitly as a person. I have not brought up the concept of proper time in terms of Newtons theory. I was pretty clear on highlighting that his...

Sorry, but i can make no sense of what you claim here. Newtowns theory predates any atomic clock by a very long time, hence there is no way it can make any statements about them. Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica explicitly introduces the concept of time as absolute...

Oh, i see the word "match" is misleading here. What i meant was merely that in order to make a comparison of two models one must first identify something that is supposed to represent the same thing. Naively i would assume one would try to identify each point in spacetime in one theory to their...

Well, honestly sorry but i have no idea why you think i have claimed that? It's a bit insulting tbh. Newton's gravity is intentions lacking entirely a field equation so there is no way to translate that. These models are obviously structurally incompatible. All i wanted to point out is that on...

Out of curiosity then, how is Newtons model of gravity actually compared against GT? Because, here the details of interpretation are not clear to me. One could either say Newtons description is a pure coordinate view and hance should be matched with GR's model of the solar system by the right...

Yes, but you have to be more careful, because the arc length is not measured absolutely, but rather always represented by a unit. The arc length in units of ##r_a## needs no correction when measured by ##r_a##, but requires one when measured by ##r_b##. The situation is reversed when the arc...

We are talking past each other. I don't dispute anything you wrote here, or rather fully agree with it. Of course we must ensure all length measurement is consistent and of course we can build the knowledge to make it so, even if we were to use rod types that don't agree with each other, we will...

So that was not the part i was referring to as impossible. Peter suggested But: If you accept neither one as a valid measure of length, what kind of further experimentation would Peter be doing then? I don't see him being able to make any quantitative observations, let alone derive any...

What you suggest here is however logically not entirely possible: experiments require measurements which need a measuring system like SI is. In this simple case SI is nothing else but a choice of which rod to take, so we go in circles. What experiments can detect however are hysteresis like...

Wow, thanks for the detailed read :D There was just this part that i am compelled to thinking more about. i take the "rigid rod" is a reference to the orinasal meter rod in Paris as an exemplary of the general abstract concept of a length measure. This involvement of geometry and it's...

Bad choice of words then, this was not at all what i meant. It's very unfortunate how ambiguous the meaning of the word "theory" is without a preceding word like "scientific" or "formal". Of course, i never put that into question. It's absurd to ignore the interpretation since that is like...

Here you left the geometry entirely unspecified apart from the dimension, hence we do not need to any additional assumptions other then framework of Riemann plus the concrete assumption on dimension. It does not actually need any assumptions on field equations. So this is just a model framework...

Hmm, sorry. I'll try; no promises :sorry: Maybe let's start with a old model, like Newtons theory: made of 3 laws, build on top of the calculus of analytic geometry available at his time and one law describing the force of gravity. All these axioms define the framework of the model ##M_F##...