Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The projective structure is an appropriate geometric field for defining zero 3-acceleration.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The projective structure presupposes a prior affine connection to be defined, making it explanatorily circular as a ground for inertial standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Weyl's own 1918 gauge program shows that projective and conformal structures together determine the affine structure, so projective structure alone underdetermines zero acceleration.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Malament and Weatherall have shown that geodesic motion is derivable from field equations, making an independent projective standard for zero acceleration redundant.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A geometric field that varies with 3-velocity cannot serve as a frame-independent standard, since 3-velocity is itself observer-relative in relativistic spacetimes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The transformation law of the projective structure has the same inhomogeneous form as the transformation law of 3-acceleration.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The projective structure depends only on spacetime location and 3-velocity, both of which are independent of 3-acceleration, as required for a well-defined standard.
?
How convincing is this?
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.