sci.physics.electromag

maxwell wrote:

>
> Tom, I was making a point about the physics, NOT some mathematical
> comment about two points that are infinitely close together or
> Einstein's mental processes. By introducing the term 'manifold' you
> have already left the world of reality (physics) and landed on Plato's
> planet of invariant relationships (math). Instead of writing
> mathematical gobbleygook like "SR is a consequence of local symmetries
> of the universe" why not talk about real phenomena, like electricity.
> SR is supposed to work at macro-separations: stop hiding behind
> infinitessimals, such as 'local symmetries'. SR is a theory of EM
> (check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
> were doing?).

Making mistakes. Lorentz admitted that Einstein's approach was the best.
Every covariant theory of gravitation requires manifolds.

The fact of the matter is that mathematics is the horse upon which
physics rides. Newton did not come up with his theory of motion until he
invented calculus, complete with infinitesimals.

The equations ARE the theory.

Bob Kolker