Re: Symmetries of general relativity

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Serenus Zeitblom) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Lubos Motl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... 
> 
> > On 26 Nov 2003, Kevin A. Scaldeferri wrote:
> > 
> > > Newtonian gravity is diffeomorphism-invariant (i.e. generally
> > > covariant).  If you find this, to use your own word, confusing, you
> > > can find it explained in depth in MTW.
> > 
> > If the books like MTW are too difficult and contrived, I recommend you the
> > Elegant Universe by Brian Greene to learn - in laymen's terms - what is
> > the symmetry group of classical physics, special relativity, and general
> > relativity. Using technical terms, they're called Galilean group, Poincare
> > group, and general diffeomorphism group.
> 
> [Moderator's note: I think there is some confusion here.  I don't think 
> Lubos Motl was claiming an ERROR in MTW, but rather saying that they are 
> "difficult and contrived", certainly not the same thing.]

Kevin Scaldeferri was pointing out that Newtonian gravity is
diffeomorphism-invariant, and he correctly observed that MTW
say the same thing, in detail. LM denies that this is true; indeed,
by referring KS to a popularization, he was implicitly claiming 
that this is an elementary fact known to all: *only* general
relativity is diffeomorphism invariant, according to LM.
It follows that LM claims that MTW contains a serious error.
If that is the case, then it would be good for LM to post 
the details: precisely which part of MTW's proof is wrong?