The Royal Society is about 25 years out-dated in general relativity

Dear Professor Wong:

How are you?

I have claimed that the Royal Society is out-dated in general relativity for about 25 years. Although nobody challenged me for such a claim, there are probably many skeptics. Recently, however, my communication [1] with the editorial of Proceedings A further confirms my claim.

In defense of the “covariant principle”, that a Board Member [1] argued that the outcome off a real experiment cannot depend on a choice of coordinates, and this is true for Newtonian theory as much as general relativity. He further argued, “If one makes the mistake of attributing incorrect physical properties to one's coordinates -- for example, assuming that because two objects in different coordinate systems are both labeled r, they must measure the same distance, or assuming that any coordinate labeled r must measure proper radial distance -- then one can mistakenly conclude that computations in different coordinate systems disagree. But as long as one identifies genuinely measurable quantities, their values cannot depend on coordinates.” Thus, the issue is the correct properties to one’s coordinates.

The core of his argument is the belief that two different gauges for the same frame of reference just two different mathematical coordinate systems, i. e., two ways of labeling. This is not true because, in physics, physical meanings must be attributed to a coordinate system such that the physical quantities expressed in terms of coordinates have appropriate physical meanings [4, 5]. Moreover, Einstein and his followers actually did not practice what he preached [6-12]. The physical meaning of coordinates is implicitly used in the symmetry considerations. In fact, all physical predictions, including Einstein’s own three tests, must be understood in terms of the physical meaning of coordinates.

Apparently, this Board Member follows faithfully the idea of Einstein. However, the “covariance principle” has been out dated about 25 years ago when Zhou Pei-Yuan [4] spoke out against it. Let us examine Einstein’s supporting arguments [2] are as follows:
"That this requirement of general covariance, which takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity, is a natural one, will be seen from the following reflexion. All our space-time verifications invariably amount to a determination of space-time coincidences. If, for example, events consisted merely in the motion of material points, then ultimately nothing would be observable but the meetings of two or more of these points. Moreover, the results of our measurings are nothing but verifications of such meetings of the material points of our measuring instruments with other material points, coincidences between the hands of a clock and points on the clock dial, and observed point-events happening at the same place at the same time. The introduction of a system of reference serves no other purpose than to facilitate the dexxxxion of the totality of such coincidences."
Einstein’s arguments, though convinced many, are actually false. Note that the meaning of measurements is crucially omitted. First, his arguments are incompatible with his earlier argument for defining time relating to local clocks [2]. Moreover, in order to predict events, one must be able to relate events of different locations in a definite manner. This means a valid method of measurement is necessary in physics [13-17].

Any comments you may have will be appreciated. Thank you for your kind attention. I am looking forward to hearing xxxx you.

Sincerely yours,

C. Y. Lo

References
1. Louise Le Bas, Publishing Editor, the Royal Society, A Board Member Comments (July 24, 2007).
2. A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Weyl, and H. Minkowski, The Principle of Relativity (Dover, New York, 1952); A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipig) 49, 769-822 (1916).
3. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton Univ. Press, 1954), p. 63, p. 87 & p. 93.
4. Zhou (Chou) Pei-yuan, “On Coordinates and Coordinate Transxxxxation in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation” in Proc. of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meetings on Gen. Relativ., ed. Hu Ning, Science Press & North Holland. (1983), 1-20.
5. Zhou Pei-yuan, “Further Experiments to Test Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, International Symposium on Experi mental Gravitational Physics (Guangzhou, 3-8 August 1987), edited by Peter F. Michelson, 110-116 (World Sci., Singapore).
6. Yu Yun-qiang, An Introduction to General Relativity (Peking Univ. Press, Beijing, 1997).
7. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (John Wiley, New York, 1972).
8. R. M. Wald, General Relativity (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).
9. H. C. Ohanian & R. Ruffini, Gravitation and Spacetime (Norton, New York, 1994).
10. N. Straumann, General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984).
11. Liu Liao, General Relativity (High Education Press, Shanghai, 1987), pp 26-30.
12. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, & J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).
13. C. Y. Lo, “On Criticisms of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle,” Phys. Essays 16 (1), 84-100 (March 2003).
14. C. Y. Lo, “The Principle of General Relativity, the Restriction to Covariance, and Stanford’s Experiment Gravity Probe-B,” Phys. Essays 18 (1), 112-124 (March 2005).
15. C. Y. Lo, Misunderstandings Related to Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, and Einstein’s Theoretical Errors on Measurements, Phys. Essays 18 (4), 547-560 (December, 2005).
16. C. Y. Lo, Space Contractions, Local Light Speeds, and the Question of Gauge in General Relativity, Chinese J. of Phys. (Taipei), 41 (4), 233-343 (August 2003).
17. C. Y. Lo, The Bending of Light Ray and Unphysical Solutions in General Relativity, Chin. Phys. (Beijing), 13 (2), 159-167 (February 2004).