Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



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 socalled 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>



