Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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 ]
Koobee Wublee

Posts: 1,417
Registered: 2/21/06
Re: The Math is still Not Ready
Posted: Mar 18, 2013 12:10 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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>



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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.