My guess on this is yes GR tells us stuff-to a point. What point? Probably there are several more physical dimensions to putz around with, if you are mathematician or physicist. The ability to infer or discover the new physical dimensions that I assert exist, is eliminated by our current lack of the right space-based equipment, that only a few brains out there, fantasize on building. Like what? Like, optical, radio, ultraviolet, infrared, gamma, LIGO's and neutrino, detectors that would be built in the outer solar system (better view farther from the Sun), about the size of say, France or the entire EU. We'd need deep cash, bigtime, for all these magic equipment and detection systems. Can I prove this claim? Hell, no! I go with the saying by Freeman Dyson who wrote that the better the equipment scientists can design and use, the better the discoveries. I reckon that there's enough good things left undiscovered, and good, as in, profound. So GR is great and will serve the species long into the future, but it cannot cover everything, being something emergent.
-----Original Message----- From: Brent Meeker <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Mar 9, 2018 8:59 pm Subject: Re: Does GR tell us why anything moves? On 3/9/2018 5:28 PM, [email protected] wrote: On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:51:29 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 9:44:30 AM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote: On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:10:13 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 3/8/2018 8:40 PM, [email protected] wrote: ... This I find troubling. We have two fundamental physical phenomenon, gravity and EM, and they seem to have no intrinsic relationship between each other. AG They have more relationship than they did when Maxwell discovered EM. It was purely a field on a fixed background. So you've been troubled since 1862. Under GR the EM field is a source of gravity and hence warps spacetime; and warped spacetime deflects EM waves. Brent Good perspective on the situation. OTOH, for Newton movement is caused by an attractive force, whereas for Einstein it's caused by the advancement of time. So, IMO, the mystery of movement in a gravity field persists. AG I am not exactly sure why you are stuck on the idea that the advance of time causes motion. Because in the absence of a force causing non-geodesic motion, the increase in time results in a change in spatial position since in the equations of motion, spatial coordinates are not independent variables; they depend on time IIUC. AG You seem to have a confused concept of "cause". To say time causes motion is like saying being different places at different times causes motion. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
