In <firstname.lastname@example.org>, on 02/16/2012 at 01:59 AM, Eric Baird <-@-.com> said:
>I mean, it was /literally/ a non-subject, there was even a slightly >self-serving clause in Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's "Gravitation" >that went as far as defining a metric theory as being "a theory that >had a metric and reduced to special relativity".
Nonsense; a definition is only a definition. Where does MTW say that a non-metric theory is a "non-subject"?
>.... So a metric theory founded on an acoustic metric supposedly >/wasn't/ a metric theory.
So? Neither is QDT, which is well accepted.
>It wasn't anything.
>If you thought "rigorously" using MTW definitions, then the very >/idea/ of an acoustic metric theory was literally "unthinkable", >in the Orwellian sense.
Really? Why doesn't the same applY to plain old QM?
>The language was too customised to support the current system >to allow even the concept of a serious alternative,
No. Nothing in the language precludes defining new terms. Now, if you want to complain that some of the methods are not useful for the work that you want to pursue, that's par for the course. No sinister machinations there, just the need to develop new machinery for new concepts.
>and an entire field of math and physics research was eliminated >by our hacking the definitions to make alternative approaches >impossible "by definition".
There was no hacking and nothing was eliminated. Au contaire, the definition of "metric" in SR and GR *broadens* the definition from Mathematics, by allowing a Lorentzian signature.
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to email@example.com