3 ms·

"Einstein said this once in a lecture and then never again" is not a persuasive argument, as most every reply to that Quora post points out. "Weber electrodyna

"Einstein said this once in a lecture and then never again" is not a persuasive argument, as most every reply to that Quora post points out. "Weber electrodynamics" is strongly counter-indicated by multiple experiments; there's no "matter that needs to be resolved". as GR's field equations tend to fry my brain somewhat You cannot have a meaningful discussion about these topics without UNDERSTANDING the theory you're criticizing.

hilbert42 5y ago
OK, fine, I accept what you're saying (but I wasn't criticizing anything other than to draw attention to matters that various authorities have opposing opinions about). Leave me out of it, in the grand schema of things what I think is completely irrelevant. Let me say I'm in the middle on this and I'm not pushing a barrow either way (other than to point out that there are alternative views). It's just that whenever this issue comes up expert views polarize one way or other and nothing is resolved—anyway, nothing that's yet made it into the textbooks that would alter them. Moreover, that "Einstein said this once in a lecture and then never again" doesn't help as he never clarified the matter. That he said it after 1905 makes matters worse, as it's his last word on the matter it's left open-ended. The question remains why didn't he clarify it (it's hard to believe that he wasn't hyper-aware of his 1905 statement when he said it). Right, Weber seems counter-indicated or it'd be in fashion/a part of the argument, the point I was making but obviously didn't was that there may be a connection if Einstein's latter statement were true. What want I to hear is your authoritative criticism of the article in the first link. As you have an alternative view, I'd like to hear your reasons for debunking it, so I'd appreciate it if you would provide details. (I reckon I've enough understanding of Λ, the metric tensor, Ricci curvature tensor, Riemannian metric/manifold, etc. to wade my way through your reply—if not then I'm sure others would understand it). My aim was to get a better understanding of this subject myself not to provide an authoritative pronouncement on the matter. After all, it's my understanding that no one yet has definitive answers about these issues otherwise the whole QM/GR/G debate/relationships would have been put to bed by now. Clearly, they've not been and we've still a major problem.

hilbert42 5y ago

OK, fine, I accept what you're saying (but I wasn't criticizing anything other than to draw attention to matters that various authorities have opposing opinions about). Leave me out of it, in the grand schema of things what I think is completely irrelevant. Let me say I'm in the middle on this and I'm not pushing a barrow either way (other than to point out that there are alternative views). It's just that whenever this issue comes up expert views polarize one way or other and nothing is resolved—anyway, nothing that's yet made it into the textbooks that would alter them. Moreover, that "Einstein said this once in a lecture and then never again" doesn't help as he never clarified the matter. That he said it after 1905 makes matters worse, as it's his last word on the matter it's left open-ended. The question remains why didn't he clarify it (it's hard to believe that he wasn't hyper-aware of his 1905 statement when he said it). Right, Weber seems counter-indicated or it'd be in fashion/a part of the argument, the point I was making but obviously didn't was that there may be a connection if Einstein's latter statement were true. What want I to hear is your authoritative criticism of the article in the first link. As you have an alternative view, I'd like to hear your reasons for debunking it, so I'd appreciate it if you would provide details. (I reckon I've enough understanding of Λ, the metric tensor, Ricci curvature tensor, Riemannian metric/manifold, etc. to wade my way through your reply—if not then I'm sure others would understand it). My aim was to get a better understanding of this subject myself not to provide an authoritative pronouncement on the matter. After all, it's my understanding that no one yet has definitive answers about these issues otherwise the whole QM/GR/G debate/relationships would have been put to bed by now. Clearly, they've not been and we've still a major problem.