On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:11 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On your particular point I have seen Einstein write explicitly he meant in the small! You are caught in a semantic quibble of no importance - in my opinion.So, is this what t'Hooft had in mind when he wrote,

"They find some support from ancient publications by famous physicists; in the first decades of

the 20th century, indeed, Karl Schwarzschild, Hermann Weyl, and even Albert Einstein, had

misconceptions about the theory, which at that time was brand new, and these pioneers indeed

had not yet grasped the full implications. They can be excused for that, but today's professional

scientists know better."

Ironically, in the above t'Hooft appears to agree with my position that Einstein's original version

of the EP (below)is not in fact supported by the modern version of GR.The onus, the burden of proof is on you to prove that your imagined difference here makes a significant difference to the foundations of physics. I think not. Prove me wrong.

Which has been my position all along. What t'Hooft doesn't explicitly acknowledge here is

that among Einstein's "misconceptions" about his 1916 theory of gravity was his entire concept

of what he called "general relativity"!

The critical point here is that the modern version of EP, unlike Einstein's classic version below, is

not a generalized relativity principle. It is merely a GR <-> SR correspondence principle, which is

only strictly valid (and need only be strictly valid) inside an infinitesimal spacetime region, and

even then only with respect to a restricted subclass of "local" measurements.