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




Re: The Math is still Not Ready
Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 5:15 PM


On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:36:26 0800 (PST), Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 8:54 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> Here is General Relativity: >> >> On a 4d Lorentzian manifold M, >> G = T >> >> where G is the Einstein curvature tensor and T is the energymomentum tensor. > >Please allow Koobee Wublee reminds Tom where that overly simplified >equation[s] above come from. Lets follow Hilberts footsteps and >pull out the following socalled Lagrangian out of Hilberts ass. > >** L = (R / K + rho)sqrt(det[g])
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 impermissible. 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.
Snip
>Faith should not come into any equations of science, no? <shrug> No.
John Polasek



