Come on przyk, you're a physicist aren't you?
Yes. Are you sure you've understood what that means? Because you've got some bizarre ideas about how to go about trying to convince a physicist of something.
Because you do not really understand something until you can explain it to your grandmother.
That's a myth.
It's not personal ideology. It's pointing out what Minkowski said, what Maxwell said, what Jackson said, and so on.
Insisting on adherence to what famous physicists said
is ideology.
"One should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fμv rather than E or B separately". Because "the field caused by the electron itself" is the field, singular, and "the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces" is what E and B is all about. They aren't fields przyk. They merely denote the forces that result from Fuv field interactions.
Except that $$\bar{E}$$ and $$\bar{B}$$ don't have the SI units of force and they aren't the time rate of change of momentum of anything, which is what the word "force" is normally taken to mean in physics, as I already explained to you. You've given no explanation whatsoever as to why $$\bar{E}$$ and $$\bar{B}$$ should be called "forces" and why it would be wrong to call them "fields". You just copied something Minkowski said.
I said What geometry? What curvature? The answer is the geometry of space. The curvature of space
You've got no evidence or supporting theoretical analysis showing that the electromagnetic field can even be
interpreted as a state of curved space, let alone any basis for presenting that as if it were an established fact.
On the face of it the idea doesn't seem workable. A small body affected just by spatial curvature should normally just follow a geodesic trajectory, in which case its equation of motion should just be the geodesic equation, which looks like this:
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2} x^{k}}{\mathrm{d}t^{2}} \,=\, -\, \Gamma^{k}_{ij} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} x^{i}}{\mathrm{d} t} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} x^{j}}{\mathrm{d}t} \,.$$
But what experiments keep confirming is that a charged body in the presence of an electromagnetic field is deflected according to the Lorentz force law, meaning that the equation of motion (for velocities much less than
c) is
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2} \bar{x}}{\mathrm{d}t^{2}} \,=\, \frac{q}{m} \, \bigl( \, \bar{E} \,+\, \bar{v} \,\times\, \bar{B} \, \bigr) \,.$$
These don't predict the same behaviour, even qualitatively. The geodesic equation predicts coordinate acceleration that depends quadratically on the coordinate velocity and independently of a body's properties such as its charge and mass. By contrast, the Lorentz force law predicts a constant contribution to the acceleration and a contribution that depends linearly on the velocity, but no quadratic term, with the magnitude of the deflection depending on the body's charge-to-mass ratio.
So if you are going to claim that the electromagnetic field can be thought of as curved space, it would fall on you to explain in detail exactly how that idea is made to work (or point to where that analysis has already been done by someone else), including how it correctly predicts the trajectories of macroscopic charges in a way consistent with the Lorentz force law.
