Einstein's gravitational redshift derivation in his famous 1916 paper on general relativity seems to be problematic, being mired in what looks like conceptual difficulties or at least contradictions or gaps in his exposition. Was this derivation a blunder? To answer this question, we will consider Einstein’s redshift derivations from his first one in 1907 to the 1921 derivation made in his Princeton lectures on relativity. This will enable to see the unfolding of an interdependent network of concepts and heuristic derivations (...) in which previous ideas inform and condition later developments. The resulting derivations and views on coordinates and clocks are in fact not without inconsistencies. However, we can see these difficulties as an aspect of an evolving network understood as a “work in progress”. (shrink)

A perverted space-time geodesy results from the notions of variable rods and clocks, which are taken to have their length and rates affected by the gravitational field. On the other hand, what we might call a concrete geodesy relies on the notions of invariable unit-measuring rods and clocks. In fact, this is a basic assumption of general relativity. Variable rods and clocks lead to a perverted geodesy in the sense that a curved space-time might be seen as arising from the (...) departure from the Minkowskian space-time as an effect of the gravitational field on the rate of clocks and the length of rods. In the case of a concrete geodesy we have “directly” a curved space-time whose curvature can be determined using (invariable) unit-measuring rods and clocks. In this paper, we will make the case for the plausibility that Einstein's views on geometry in relation to general relativity are permeated by a perverted geodesy. (shrink)

While Einstein considered that sub specie astern the correct philosophical position regarding geometry was that of the conventionality of geometry, he felt that provisionally it was necessary to adopt a non-conventional stance that he called practical geometry. here we will make the case that even when adopting Einstein’s views we must conclude that practical geometry is conventional after all. Einstein missed the fact that the conventionality of simultaneity leads to a conventional element in the chrono-geometry, since it corresponds to the (...) possibility of different space-time metrics. (shrink)

The conventionality of simultaneity thesis as established by Reichenbach and Grünbaum is related to the partial freedom in the definition of simultaneity in an inertial reference frame. An apparently altogether different issue is that of the conventionality of spatial geometry, or more generally the conventionality of chronogeometry when taking also into account the conventionality of the uniformity of time. Here we will consider Einstein’s version of the conventionality of geometry, according to which we might adopt a different spatial geometry and (...) a particular definition of equality of successive time intervals. The choice of a particular chronogeometry would not imply any change in a theory, since its “physical part” can be changed in a way that, regarding experimental results, the theory is the same. Here, we will make the case that the conventionality of simultaneity is closely related to Einstein’s conventionality of chronogeometry, as another conventional element leading to it. (shrink)