The Math Forum

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: Spoonfeeding Field Equations
Replies: 6   Last Post: Feb 20, 2013 2:03 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: Spoonfeeding Field Equations
Posted: Feb 20, 2013 2:03 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Feb 19, 1:18 pm, Giovano di Bacco <> wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > In a 4x4 matrix, there are 16 elements, and each element forms a
> > differential equation. If you think time and space are allowed to
> > intertwine, then there are 16 equations. If not, there are only 10
> > equations. However, due to natural symmetry, they reduce down to 10 and
> > 7 equations respectively. Furthermore, if you only allow diagonal
> > metric, then there are only 4 equations. Finally, if the spherically
> > symmetric polar coordinate system is employed, that reduces further into
> > just 3 equations. Solving these 3 equations is a challenging and
> > daunting task. Imagine doing so with 16 equations. <shrug>

> i am total confuses, how do i know what to intertwine, ahmmm???

Good question. There remains no proof that time and space can be
intertwined according to the general equation describing the spacetime
geometry since all practical applications call out for the diagonal
metric which says time and space do not intertwine. <shrug>

> what happens in nature does not depend on my intertwine;

What is that again? <shrug>

> 16 or 3 equations does not really matter, since i feed them numerically
> into a computer anyway, also symbolic, let the computer do the dirty job

These solutions all predict Newtonian results when the curvature of
spacetime is weak. What separate them apart are the extreme boundary
conditions. For example, the Schwarzschild metric manifests black
holes. <shrug>

> > Finally, there are infinite solutions in which the Schwarzschild metric
> > is one of them. The Schwarzschild metric was derived by Hilbert. A
> > year or two before that in early 1916, Schwarzschild derived a solution
> > that does not manifest black holes. <shrug>

> how many metrics are there anyway??

An infinite of them that satisfy Newtonian law of gravity at weak
curvature in spacetime. However, each one predicts drastically
different manifestations at extrem conditions. <shrug>

> and i suppose the Schwarzschild solution must be right

Assumptions are mostly wrong. You need experimental verifications.

> since an attempt to modelled a blackhole would
> crash a computer

Either you have an outdated computer in hardware or inept programmers
that have developed the software. <shrug>

> have you a homepage with these equations in a readable form?

Sorry no --- not yet. What Koobee Wublee has given you you can write
down these differential equations to explore if the Schwarzschild
metric is indeed a solution or not and what other solutions are out
there. Oh, @/@x means partial derivative with respect to x. <shrug>

Hope this helps. <shrug>

Oh, by the way, why are you filtering out the newsgroups when
replying? Are you one of these Einstein Dingleberries with familiar
past who is trying to learn more about GR where piles of textbooks you
are sitting on do not give any comfortable closures? Yes, they are
all written to mystify and proliferating the bullshit in order for the
self-styled physicists to maintain their elite priesthood in status
quo. <shrug>

However, it is comforting to see an ex-Einstein-Dingleberry able to
learn about the truth. <shrug>

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.