Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Einstein's attempt to incorporate Mach's Principle (version 2) into general relativity and relativistic cosmology is misguided

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mach's Principle version 2 is grounded in the Leibnizian-Machian relational conception of motion
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Leibnizian-Machian relational conception of motion is incoherent within the context of general relativity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A principle that relies on an incoherent conception should not be incorporated into a physical theory
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.General relativity admits vacuum solutions (e.g., Minkowski spacetime) where inertial structure exists without any matter distribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mach's Principle version 2 requires inertial frames to be fully determined by the global matter distribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A principle that is falsified by the theory's own solutions cannot be coherently incorporated into that theory as a foundational constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Einstein's field equations permit de Sitter spacetime, a matter-free solution with well-defined inertial properties, which Weyl and others recognized as a decisive counterexample.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If inertia can be defined in the complete absence of matter, then the causal-explanatory role Mach's Principle assigns to matter distribution is rendered otiose within general relativity's formalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.