Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Koobee Wublee Posts: 1,417 Registered: 2/21/06
Re: The Math is still Not Ready
Posted: Mar 18, 2013 12:10 AM

On Mar 17, 2:15 pm, Jackpo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2013, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > 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])
>
> sqrt(-det[g])?

The determinant of the metric is negative. So, sqrt(-det[g]) is a
real number. <shrug>

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

That is because nothing can travel beyond the speed of light. <shrug>

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

Yes, of course. <shrug>

> 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.

[g]_00 (your g00) is not -1. It is +1 --- (1 ? 2 U) thing. <shrug>

> This is gloatingly described in Gravitation by MTWheeler, "Farewell
> to ict".

If nothing can travel beyond the speed of light, the signature of the
metric ought to be (+1, -1, -1, -1). <shrug>

> 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.

The fault of GR starts way before the construction of spacetime.
<shrug>

> 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.

[g] (your g) does not have to be diagonal. It is made diagonal to
simplify the already complex math. If [g] is not diagonal, it would
be relatively impossible to solve for the field equations. <shrug>

> 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.

There is no ict thing if the signature is (+1, -1, -1, -1). <shrug>

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

<amen>

Date Subject Author
1/6/13 Koobee Wublee
1/6/13 J. Antonio Perez M.
1/7/13 Koobee Wublee
3/17/13 John Polasek
3/18/13 Koobee Wublee
3/19/13 John Polasek