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



Re: The Math is still Not Ready
Posted:
Jan 6, 2013 7:27 AM


On Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:36:26 AM UTC+2, Koobee Wublee 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. 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]) > > > > Where > > > > ** L = Lagrangian > > ** R = Ricci scalar > > ** K = Constant > > ** rho = Mass density > > ** [g] = The metric (a 4x4 matrix) > > ** det[] = Determinant of a matrix > > > > For the language of convention in this case, [A] means a matrix with > > elements [A]_ijk... or [A]^ijk... > > > > The field equations can be derived in just one step by taking the > > partial derivative of the Lagrangian above with respect to [g^1]^ij > > where [g^1], a matrix, is the inverse of [g], another matrix, and > > after setting each of the partial derivative to null, the result is > > the following relationships of matrices. > > > > ** [R] ? R [g] / 2 = K rho [g] / 2 > > > > Where > > > > ** [R] = Ricci tensor (another 4x4 matrix) > > > > You would call the following. > > > > ** [G] = [R] ? R [g] / 2 > > ** [T] = K rho [g] / 2 > > > > Thus, > > > > ** [G] = [T] > > > > Koobee Wublee would also like to remind Tom that the above equation > > has never been tested with any experimentations, and the best Tom can > > hope for is the following where the energy momentum tensor is null. > > > > ** [G] = 0 > > > > Where > > > > ** [T] = 0 > > > > Using only diagonal [g], the equation above simplifies into the > > following where the effect of the ever so celebrated trace term is > > nullified. The null Ricci tensor was basically Nordstrom?s work where > > Schwarzschild had been working on the solution for years. That is why > > within a couple months after Hilbert presented the field equations, > > Schwarzschild published a solution. > > > > ** [R] = 0, first proposed by Nordstrom as the field equations > > > > Where > > > > ** R [g] / 2 = The trace term > > > > <shrug> > > > > > To get SR from GR: > > > > > > Riemann = 0 > > > Top(M) ~ R^4 > > > > > > where Riemann is the Riemann curvature tensor on M, and Top(M) is the topology of M. > > > > Nonsense, Tom. If the Riemann tensor is null, the Ricci tensor must > > be null as well in which you end up with the null Ricci tensor above > > where you can solve for the Schwarzschild metric and other equally > > valid solutions that are able to degenerate into Newtonian law of > > gravity at weak curvature in spacetime. <shrug> > > > > The best way to get SR from GR is to set the gravitating mass, M, to > > 0, duh! <shrug> > > > > ** ds^2 = c^2 (1 ? 2 U) dt^2 ? dr^2 / (1 ? 2 U) ? r^2 dO^2 > > > > Where > > > > ** U = G M / c^2 / r > > > > > [Note that approximations are important in applying the theory, > > > as this is PHYSICS, not math. Based on your writings around > > > here, and your aversion to any intellectual effort, I estimate > > > you will never understand this.] > > > > Tom, in GR, physics = math, and math = physics. So, start > > understanding the mathematics involved instead of wishing for what you > > believe in. <shrug> > > > > Faith should not come into any equations of science, no? <shrug>
IDIOT



