On the curved space-time, interesting that in his Ph.d thesis , Marx favored Epicurus over Democritus , and Epicurus held that there was a declination of a falling atom from a straight line, that atoms "swwerved" , which is a curve, in contrast with Democritus who held they fall in a straightline.
Democritus speculatively thought of atoms.
Did Epircurus speculatively discover curved space-time ?
( See below)
Charles
^^^^^^
andie nachgeborenen
Gravity is not a force. That is the fundamental negative result of GTR -- the elimination of the idea of the "force" of gravitation posited by Newton, thus the elimination of the problem of action at a distance that so puzzled him.* Gravity is an effect of the curvature of spacetime near massy objects. It is an consequence of geometry. Neither is it correct to say that it in virtue of some occult force that mass-energy "causes" spacetime to curve. That presupposes tata spacetime is somehow naturally Euclidean and that something must be posited to expalin deviations from flatness. This is an error. S-T is locally Euclidean, which may be where the error comes from. It may be (but probbaly isn't) Euclidean in on the large scale, but once you give up the idea of Newtonian absolute space, fixed, immovable, the same everywhere, it is no special mystery why the presence of mass-energy would produce variations in the shape of spacetime, and why it would produce the precise highly preductable vatiations it does. No occult powers are called for to account for this unless you illegitimately import closet Newtonian assumptions. As noted by me and others, a unification of GTR with qwuantum theory, which hopefully will give us more ins ights into gravity, still eludes us.
* Action at a distance creeps back in quantum theory -- in a context totally removed from gravitation -- via Bell's Theorem, but quantum is so fundamentally bizarre and incomprehensible that there isn't much we can do about that
^^^^^^
Karl Marx The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Part II: On the Difference between Democritean and Epicurean Physics In Detail http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/ch04.htm ________________________________
Chapter One: The Declination of the Atom from the Straight Line
________________________________
Epicurus assumes a threefold motion of the atoms in the void.(1) <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/ch04.htm#1> One motion is the fall in a straight line, the second originates in the deviation of the atom from the straight line, and the third is established through the repulsion of the many atoms. Both Democritus and Epicurus accept the first and the third motion. The declination of the atom from the straight line differentiates the one from the other.(2) <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/ch04.htm#2>
This motion of declination has often been made the subject of a joke. Cicero more than any other is inexhaustible when he touches on this theme. Thus we read in him, among other things:
"Epicurus maintains that the atoms are thrust downwards in a straight line by their weight; this motion is said to he the natural motion of bodies. But then it occurred to him that if all atoms were thrust downwards, no atom could ever meet another one. Epicurus therefore resorted to a lie. He said that the atom makes a very tiny swerve, which is, of course, entirely impossible. From this arose complexities, combinations and adhesions of the atoms with one another, and out of this came the world, all parts of it and its contents. Besides all this being a puerile invention, he does not even achieve what he desires."(3) <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/ch04.htm#3>
We find another version in the first book of Cicero's treatise On the Nature of the Gods:
"Since Epicurus saw that, if the atoms travelled downwards by their own weight, nothing would be within our control, for their motion would be determined and necessary, he invented a means for escaping this necessity, a means which had escaped the notice of Democritus. He says that the atom, although thrust downwards by its weight and gravity, makes a very slight swerve. To assert this is more disgraceful than to he incapable of defending what he wants."(4) <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/ch04.htm#4>