General Relativity For Teletubbies

Sir Kevin Aylward B.Sc., Warden of the Kings Ale

Geometry & Relativity

__Back
to the Contents
section__

It is clear that many are very confused as to
what a "geometric" explanation is with regard to Relativity. That is,
Special and General Relativity does not offer a "geometric"
explanation for the physical consequences of Relativity in any way shape or
form. It only gives an *account* of the physical observations, on the assumption
of the physical facts.

Such claims abound, and are repeated endlessly
from follower to follower, with no questioning as what that statement actually
means. Hopefully, this article will clear up the situation.

**Geometry
is a branch of mathematics**.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry

Geometry
does not contain any physical facts as of itself, however it may be used
describe physical facts.

Geometry
is based and defined on arithmetic and logic. Physical reality forms no part of
geometry. It's an "all in the mind" endeavor, by definition.

For
example, geometry, defines a triangle, purely mathematically. Whether or not a
triangle physically exists in the universe is not relevant, or even if a
straight line physically exists. Thus if one observes a physical object with the
properties of a triangle, geometry cannot possible be an explanation for the
triangle's existence itself or that it has those specific properties. Geometry
can only *describe* the properties that such a discovered object has, when
it is discovered, if it satisfies the axioms.

This
is root of the misconception of the phrase "The geometry of Space-Time
explains why clocks taken on round trips read different from the reference
clock”.

The
word "geometry" has been hijacked then used in a manner that gives an
incorrect meaning to the situation. There is a conflation of geometric
properties with physical properties. Physical properties requires physical
measurements, geometric properties do not.

Thus
when a claim such as geometry does not explain a physical characteristic is
made, it means, essentially, that
the of all the possible mathematical (geometric) results that include the
physical fact, there is no unique geometric way of saying which one of those
general geometric results agree with that physical fact.

This
can be summarised by:

*If
a physical measurement is required to determine a property, that property is not
a geometric property (geometric fact), it is only a property that may be
describable by geometry.*

Without
real objects, and rulers, geometry has no meaning in a real physical universe.
Geometry is a virtual concept. Objects in the physical

In
the example of SR, the physical fact of an apparent invariant speed of light
"c", is what selects out the LT from the GT. There is no geometric way
to make this selection. It is thus the physical fact of apparent invariance of
"c" that explains clock readings, not geometry.

Geometry
has way too many *general* solutions to *explain* physics. It is
equivalent to claiming that geometry says the answer will be between 0 and 1.
The measurement discovers it is 0.04689254748, thus geometry has explained the
physics.

The
fact that there may be only two options such as infinite or c, does not refute
the argument, notwithstanding that much has been written that the LT is inherent
based on various assumptions.

© Kevin Aylward 2000 - 2020

All rights reserved

The information on the page may be reproduced

providing that this source is acknowledged.

Website last modified 15^{th} May 2020

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html

kevinEXTRACTextract@kevinaylward.co.uk

Remove EXTRACT from the email address