- This only proves that you cannot read objectively read as I said all along.You distort the text to conform to your delusionary fixation.You actually say nothing substantial below. You only pontificate. No details.Your remarks on "acceleration" are gibberish. You confound two different uses of the same term in Einstein's GR as I explained in detail yesterday. Your entire confused not-even-wrong critique of the equivalence principle is based on your garbled fusion of these two meanings of the same term. You are not able to properly parse context.On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:49 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:I just re-read Feynman's "Cargo Cult" speech and I have to say he gives a stunningly accurate

description of your bone-headed dogmatic attitude to criticism of Einstein's equivalence principle,

and your parrot-like replication of orthodox textbook positions.

Feynman's point is that a true scientist must encourage efforts to expose problems with even

his most cherished theories and hypotheses, and to welcome hard-hitting criticism.

With regard to orthodox GR -- the formal theorems of which you slavishly recite in true "Cargo

Cult style" -- I'm doing exactly what Feynman is asking for.

So what's your point?

Also, I see no mention of "cocktail party philosophers" or "philofawzical" thinking in this talk.

So I still say that you are seriously misrepresenting Feynman's attitude to philosophers in general, and

are completely reversing his position in my case. Feynman's "cocktail party philosophers" were the positivists

who took the position that Eimstein's theories of "relativity" had eliminated the ether and rendered all motion

purely relative -- which according to Feynman is not true, but is rather a myth that was founded on ignorance

of the details of the actual theories in question. Which is almost exactly what I've been saying here -- there is

no such thing as "general relativity".

So in my case -- since I'm taking a diametrically opposed position to the positivist whereby acceleration in GR

is not relative but absolute -- you have precisely inverted the meaning of Feynman's remarks!

Z.Appendix - the two meanings of "acceleration" in Einstein's GR that Z confounds.1. relative acceleration between two locally coincident observers Alice and Bob2. Absolute acceleration of the centers of mass of each of them individually - detected as g-force on the observers,Alice and Bob are measuring the same set of events {C} up to any limits set by the quantum principle.My refutation of Z's crackpot theory is his nonsense that1) the equivalence principle is wrong2) there is a physically meaningful non-zero 3rd rank "nonmetricity" "tensor" inside the Levi-Civita connection - utter hogwash based on a nonsensical Rube Goldberg fantasy of a second connection. Sure once you make up your own rules and cheat you can say any stupid thing you like and Z does.

Ironically, among such "cocktail party philosophers" was the younger Einstein himself, before he himself

recanted in 1918!

It was precisely such "philofawzical" reasoning that motivated Einstein's attempts to generalize the 1905

relativity principle to accelerating motion, leading directly to Einstein's famous equivalence principle that

*literally identified*fictitious and actual matter-produced gravitational fields.Z simply does not understand the different meanings of "acceleration" in Einstein's theory. He garbles them and falls into confusion.Meaning 1: The field equations retain their form (covariance) for locally coincident observers in arbitrary relative motion.Meaning 2: Acceleration is absolute - physically measured by g-force. Any point test particle-observer Alice on a timelike Levi-Civita connection geodesic world line has zero absolute (tensor covariant) 4-acceleration - and is weightless. Similarly, any such test particle Bob-observer pushed off that geodesic by a non-gravity force has absolute acceleration and feels g-force (aka weight).However, both observers see the same field equations! The latter is the principle of general relativity.The unaccelerated weightless Alice seesGIJ + /\zpfnIJ + kTIJ = 0I,J are LIF indicesnIJ = flat Minkowski metric of Einstein's 1905 SRGIJ is the Einstein curved space-time tensorTIJ is the non-gravity field energy-momentum-stress tensorThe locally coincident heavy Bob seesGuv + /\zpfguv + kTuv = 0where u,v are the LNIF indicese.g. the metric tensor field tetrad e^Iu transformation isguv(LNIF) = nIJ(LIF)e^Iue^Jvsimilarly for G & Tvery simple.Z muddies clear waters, makes simple things hard.

In reality Feynman's actual position was the exact opposite -- that attempts to generalize the 1905 principle to

"general relativity" were misguided, and that Einstein's theories do not in fact support a pure relational theory of

spacetime as various pseudo-positivists once believed, and that spacetime is consequently*absolute*, as opposed

to*relational*.

Feynman cites Ehrenfest's two-clock problem as proof that Einstein's 1905 theory, as reformulated using

Minkowski's geometric spacetime model, does not in fact support a relational view of space and time. Because

in Einstein's theories acceleration is in fact absolute, and not relative.

In other words, Feynman is arguing against Einstein's classic concept of "general relativity" -- a generalization of

the 1905 relativity principle to accelerating and rotating motion -- and not for it. So Feynman actually agrees with

my position on GR, and rejects Jack's.

Z.On Nov 30, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:What drugs are you pushing here Jack? Ones that would make me as disconnected from

reality as you are?

You clearly have no idea of what Feynman was actually referring to when he ridiculed the

"philofawzical" reasoning of what he called "cocktail party philosophers".

You are completely misrepresenting Feynman's position on Einstein's theories, which actually

agree quite closely with mine, and not with yours. Feynman was ridiculing the pseudo-positivist

philosophers who once argued that Einstein's theories of so-called "relativity" support a purely

relational view of space and time -- which according to Feynman (and myself, among many

others) they do not

If acceleration is absolute, then there is no such thing as "general relativity" as Einstein originally

defined it. That's all there is to it. Feynman's position was that according to Einstein's actual 1915

theory of gravity, acceleration is*absolute*.

The sin of the "cocktail party philosophers" was to ignore this fact about Einstein's actual theories

of space, time, and gravitation.

You do not appear to have the slightest understanding of the logical relationship between the

question of the existence of the ether, on the one hand, and Einstein's classic concept of a

generalized relativity principle ("general relativity"), on the other.

More on this later.

Z.

JACK SARFATTI wrote:Z you are obviously off your meds - or need some.

## Example: Static observers in Schwarzschild vacuum

For example ( c = G = 1)e^0(LNIF) = - (1 - 2m/r)^1/2dt = -[1 + (1/2)(2m/r) + (1x1/2x4)(2m/r)^2 + (1x1x3/2x4x6)(2m/r)^3 + (1x1x3x5/2x4x6x8)(2m/r)^4 + ...]dte^0(LIF) = -dte^0(LNIF) = e^0(LIF) + A^0(LNIF)A^0(LNIF) = A^0tdtWe have the static LNIF "acceleration field" infinite Taylor series expansion for 2m/r < 1A^0t = - [1 + (1/2)(2m/r) + (1x1/2x4)(2m/r)^2 + (1x1x3/2x4x6)(2m/r)^3 + (1x1x3x5/2x4x6x8)(2m/r)^4 + ...]The A's vanish when r ---> infinity and m ---> 0Do not confuse this with the actual universal inertial g-force per unit test particleg = (m/r^2)(1 - 2m/r)^-1/2"It will be instructive to consider in some detail a few simple examples. Consider the famous Schwarzschild vacuum that models spacetime outside an isolated nonspinning spherically symmetric massive object, such as a star. In most textbooks one finds the metric tensor written in terms of a static polar spherical chart, as follows:More formally, the metric tensor can be expanded with respect to the coordinate cobasis asA coframe can be read off from this expression:To see that this coframe really does correspond to the Schwarzschild metric tensor, just plug this coframe intoThe frame dual to the coframe is(The minus sign on σ^{0}ensures that is*future pointing*.) This is the frame that models the experience of**static observers**who use rocket engines to*"hover" over the massive object*. The thrust they require to maintain their position is given by the magnitude of the acceleration vectorThis is radially outward pointing, since the observers need to accelerate*away*from the object to avoid falling toward it. On the other hand, the spatially projected Fermi derivatives of the spatial basis vectors (with respect to ) vanish, so this is a nonspinning frame.The components of various tensorial quantities with respect to our frame and its dual coframe can now be computed.For example, the tidal tensor for our static observers is defined using tensor notation (for a coordinate basis) aswhere we write to avoid cluttering the notation. Its only non-zero components with respect to our coframe turn out to beThe corresponding coordinate basis components are(A quick note concerning notation: many authors put carets over*abstract*indices referring to a frame. When writing down*specific components*, it is convenient to denote frame components by 0,1,2,3 and coordinate components by*t*,*r*,θ,φ. Since an expression like*S*_{ab}= 36*m*/*r*doesn't make sense as a tensor equation, there should be no possibility of confusion.)Compare the tidal tensor Φ of Newtonian gravity, which is the**traceless part**of the Hessian of the gravitational potential*U*. Using tensor notation for a tensor field defined on three-dimensional euclidean space, this can be writtenThe reader may wish to crank this through (notice that the trace term actually vanishes identically when U is harmonic) and compare results with the following elementary approach: we can compare the gravitational forces on two nearby observers lying on the same radial line:Because in discussing tensors we are dealing with multilinear algebra, we retain only first order terms, so Φ_{11}= − 2*m*/*r*^{3}. Similarly, we can compare the gravitational force on two nearby observers lying on the same sphere*r*=*r*_{0}. Using some elementary trigonometry and the small angle approximation, we find that the force vectors differ by a vector tangent to the sphere which has magnitudeBy using the small angle approximation, we have ignored all terms of order*O*(*h*^{2}), so the tangential components are Φ_{22}= Φ_{33}=*m*/*r*^{3}. Here, we are referring to the obvious frame obtained from the polar spherical chart for our three-dimensional euclidean space:Plainly, the coordinate components computed above don't even scale the right way, so they clearly cannot correspond to what an observer will measure even approximately. (By coincidence, the Newtonian tidal tensor components agree exactly with the relativistic tidal tensor components we wrote out above.)"Wiki article excerpt