Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Space–time philosophy reconstructed via massive Nordström scalar gravities? Laws vs. geometry, conventionality, and underdetermination.J. Brian Pitts - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 53:73-92.
    What if gravity satisfied the Klein-Gordon equation? Both particle physics from the 1920s-30s and the 1890s Neumann-Seeliger modification of Newtonian gravity with exponential decay suggest considering a "graviton mass term" for gravity, which is _algebraic_ in the potential. Unlike Nordström's "massless" theory, massive scalar gravity is strictly special relativistic in the sense of being invariant under the Poincaré group but not the 15-parameter Bateman-Cunningham conformal group. It therefore exhibits the whole of Minkowski space-time structure, albeit only indirectly concerning volumes. Massive (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Spacetime theory as physical geometry.Robert Disalle - 1995 - Erkenntnis 42 (3):317-337.
    Discussions of the metaphysical status of spacetime assume that a spacetime theory offers a causal explanation of phenomena of relative motion, and that the fundamental philosophical question is whether the inference to that explanation is warranted. I argue that those assumptions are mistaken, because they ignore the essential character of spacetime theory as a kind of physical geometry. As such, a spacetime theory does notcausally explain phenomena of motion, but uses them to construct physicaldefinitions of basic geometrical structures by coordinating (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   34 citations  
  • The Geometry of Conventionality.James Owen Weatherall & John Byron Manchak - 2014 - Philosophy of Science 81 (2):233-247.
    There is a venerable position in the philosophy of space and time that holds that the geometry of spacetime is conventional, provided one is willing to postulate a “universal force field.” Here we ask a more focused question, inspired by this literature: in the context of our best classical theories of space and time, if one understands “force” in the standard way, can one accommodate different geometries by postulating a new force field? We argue that the answer depends on one’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Why Reichenbach wasn't entirely wrong, and Poincaré was almost right, about geometric conventionalism.Patrick M. Duerr & Yemima Ben-Menahem - 2022 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 96 (C):154-173.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Remarks on Relational Theories of Motion.John Earman - 1989 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 19 (1):83 - 87.
    In a recent article in this journal, Barbara Lariviere offers a very useful distinction between two ways of understanding the claims that Leibniz, or relational theorists in general, might wish to make about the nature of motion and the structure of space and time; viz., There is no real inertial structure to space-time.and There is a real inertial structure to space-time, but it is dynamical rather than absolute.Citing the authority of Weyl, the author argues that L1 is untenable; indeed, the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation