The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: The Math is still Not Ready
Replies: 8   Last Post: Mar 19, 2013 10:35 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
John Polasek

Posts: 4
Registered: 9/5/12
Re: The Math is still Not Ready
Posted: Mar 17, 2013 5:15 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:36:26 -0800 (PST), Koobee Wublee
<> wrote:

>On Jan 5, 8:54 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

>> Here is General Relativity:
>> On a 4-d Lorentzian manifold M,
>> G = T
>> where G is the Einstein curvature tensor and T is the energy-momentum tensor.

>Please allow Koobee Wublee reminds Tom where that overly simplified
>equation[s] above come from. Let’s follow Hilbert’s footsteps and
>pull out the following so-called Lagrangian out of Hilbert’s ass.
>** L = (R / K + rho)sqrt(-det[g])

Why should it be necessary to first make the determinant negative? (we
can all see the algebraic requirement of course).

Don't you have any suspicions about such a fictitious looking term?

I have pointed this out before: the metric tensor g is invalid. The
term g00 = -1 is purely fraudulent, an arrangement calculated to avoid
the product ict x ict and make it look like other real dimensions:
e.g. ct x ct.
This is gloatingly described in Gravitation by MTWheeler, "Farewell
to ict".
I think we can agree that it is invalid to make major changes in the
coefficients of a matrix like g, just to make up for the defects in
the vector field.
g is Diagonal and is meant strictly for stretching, but at the same
time With a negative determinant it is thereby inadvertently
converting positive volumes into negative ones, which is clearly
It is regrettable that this duplicity has not been challenged
anywhere, but it should be up for discussion.
The time coordinate has to be retained as ict and it can never legally
be promoted as an additional dimension that can be matched up with the
real XYZ.


>Faith should not come into any equations of science, no? <shrug>

John Polasek

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.