James L. Anderson analyzed the novelty of Einstein's theory of gravity as its lack of "absolute objects." Michael Friedman's related work has been criticized by Roger Jones and Robert Geroch for implausibly admitting as absolute the timelike 4-velocity field of dust in cosmological models in Einstein's theory. Using the Rosen-Sorkin Lagrange multiplier trick, I complete Anna Maidens's argument that the problem is not solved by prohibiting variation of absolute objects in an action principle. Recalling Anderson's proscription of "irrelevant" variables, I (...) generalize that proscription to locally irrelevant variables that do no work in some places in some models. This move vindicates Friedman's intuitions and removes the Jones-Geroch counterexample: some regions of some models of gravity with dust are dust-free and so naturally lack a timelike 4-velocity, so diffeomorphic equivalence to (1,0,0,0) is spoiled. Torretti's example involving constant curvature spaces is shown to have an absolute object on Anderson's analysis, viz., the conformal spatial metric density. The previously neglected threat of an absolute object from an orthonormal tetrad used for coupling spinors to gravity appears resolvable by eliminating irrelevant fields. However, given Anderson's definition, GTR itself has an absolute object (as Robert Geroch has observed recently): a change of variables to a conformal metric density and a scalar density shows that the latter is absolute. (shrink)

The advent of the general theory of relativity was so entirely the work of just one person - Albert Einstein - that we cannot but wonder how long it would have taken without him for the connection between gravitation and spacetime curvature to be discovered. What would have happened if there were no Einstein? Few doubt that a theory much like special relativity would have emerged one way or another from the researchers of Lorentz, Poincaré and others. But where would (...) the problem of relativizing gravitation have led? The saga told here shows how even the most conservative approach to relativizing gravitation theory still did lead out of Minkowski spacetime to connect gravitation to a curved spacetime. Unfortunately we still cannot know if this conclusion would have been drawn rapidly without Einstein's contribution. For what led Nordström to the gravitational field dependence of lengths and times was a very Einsteinian insistence on just the right version of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Unceasingly in Nordström's ear was the persistent and uncompromising voice of Einstein himself demanding that Nordström see the most distant consequences of his own theory. © 1992 Springer-Verlag. (shrink)

Einstein insisted throughout his life that the signal achievement of his general theory of relativity was its general covariance. How are we to reconcile this with the now common view that general covariance merely expresses a definition, our freedom to label events with any set of numbers we like? There is, I believe, a natural reading for Einstein's claims that does make perfect sense. It requires us to adopt a physical interpretation of relativity theory that is now no longer popular, (...) so the natural reading will no longer have intrinsic interest. It will, however, allow us to make sense of Einstein's claims and his program. (shrink)

A. Einstein, “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”, Sitzung der Physikalisch-mathematischen Klasse vom 8. Februar 1917, „Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akad. d. Wissenschaften, 1917”, pp. 142–152. Translated to Polish from original German work by Robert Janusz.

The thesis of the conventionality of simultaneity in the special theory of relativity has been the subject of controversy for over fifty years Unfortunately, debates about this thesis have sometimes been marred by a failure to clearly distinguish different conventionalist theories. In my dissertation I evaluate, clarify, and carefully distinguish a number of different conventionalist theories, and thus clear up some of the confusion surrounding the thesis of the conventionality of simultaneity . In particular, I examine the following conventionalist theories. (...) ;According to the definitional theory of principles, there are some important scientific "laws" which apparently state facts, but which in reality are true by definition. I show that the most notable attempts, to establish that some important scientific laws were actually "definitions in disguise" were not successful. ;According to the theory of conventional reference, there are some words which have meanings which do not uniquely determine their respective references. For example, Reichenbach claimed that the meaning of "simultaneity" did not uniquely determine its reference. I show in my dissertation that if Reichenbach were correct about the meaning of "simultaneity" then his argument would be sound, but that there are good reasons for doubting the correctness of Reichenbach's views about the meaning of "simultaneity". ;Closely related to the theory of conventional reference was Reichenbach's theory of coordinative definitions. According to the theory of coordinative definitions, if a word's meaning failed to uniquely determine its reference, some sentences in the theory must be used solely to fix the reference of the word. Reichenbach proposed a coordinative definition of "simultaneity", but I argue in my dissertation that even if one accepts Reichenbach's views about the meaning of "simultaneity", his views about the coordinative definition of "simultaneity" are not substantiated. ;According to the theory of intertranslatability, there are apparently incompatible scientific theories which nonetheless "say the same thing", in some intuitive sense. Such theories are said to be intertranslatable. For example, according to Winnie there are theories which seem to be incompatible with the standard version of the special theory of relativity, but which are actually intertranslatable with it. After examining a number of proposed criteria for intertranslatability, I select an adequate one. I use this criterion to show that Winnie's claim is true, but trivial, since the proposed "alternatives" to the standard version of the special theory of relativity are merely the same covariant theory expressed in different coordinate systems. ;Finally, according to the theory of conventional relations, there are some relations which are conventional because they are not intrinsic . Malament demonstrated that if symmetric causal connectability is the only intrinsic spacetime relation, then standard simultaneity is not a conventional relation, but every non-standard simultaneity relation is conventional. I demonstrate that if an asymmetric causal connectability relation is intrinsic, then not only is standard simultaneity not conventional, there are also an infinitude of non-conventional non-standard simultaneity relations. (shrink)

The Law of Inertia plays a key role in the scheme of constructive axioms for the General Theory of Relativity. A new formulation of this law which avoids the circularity problems inherent in previous formulations is presented. The empirical status of this law and the manner in which it provides a non-conventional foundation for the Law of Motion and the definition of physical forces is established. First, quite general path structures are discussed which are not defined at the outset in (...) terms of geodesic paths and which require for their description only the local differential topological structure. Secondly, a number of theorems are presented which serve as purely local differential topological criteria for singling out from among the general path structures the geodesic ones that represent the inertial structure of spacetime. (shrink)