Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377923
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution |
| Date | 2016-03-05 05:24 +0100 |
| Organization | PointedEars Software (PES) |
| Message-ID | <56DA5F8C.7010402@PointedEars.de> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <715d4bf4-c699-4a14-a16b-492416282f58@googlegroups.com> <7287934.XPeLYpz2IV@PointedEars.de> <715fb6fc-6132-47ba-90c8-2a3ebbb42193@googlegroups.com> <56D8D3FC.1030604@PointedEars.de> <a02e312b-d0f2-4d92-95fe-7881a9956c4d@googlegroups.com> |
JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:17:02 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 3:13:08 AM UTC-8, Thomas
>>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
>> Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.
Which part of that did you not understand?
>>>> JanPB wrote:
>>>>> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> […] The fact is that ds^2 is a tensor, not a number.
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> How did you get that idea?
>>> It's the definition.
>> Proof by assertion.
> Sorry, this just is the definition of ds^2. I cannot change it.
We have already determined that there is not one single correct definition,
so it is not *the* definition, but *a* definition (that you are using).
>>> You don't believe me?
>> No, as always, I have to see evidence supporting your opinion.
> Pick any book on differential geometry (not an undergraduate hand-waving
> text though), e.g.:
>
> Barrett O'Neill: "Semi-Riemannian Geometry",
> […]
> etc.
Insufficient. You need to *cite* your sources to substantiate your claims.
Citing means referring to the *exact* statement that does this. (If you are
who you claim you are, you know this already.)
> You said it was a scalar. So it must be a well-defined number at each
> point of the sphere. What number is it? What's the formula? Be precise.
Your logic is still flawed.
>>>> But "ds" alone does _not_ define the geometry;
>>> Since we differ what the symbol "ds" means, we won't agree here.
>> Non sequitur.
> So now we DO agree what the symbol "ds" means?
No, we do not. For one, I am willing to accept the possibility that it does
not have only one meaning, while you do not.
> I'll take your non-sequitur and raise it to falsehood then :-) Make up
> your mind!
I have not changed my mind. Look up the meaning of “non sequitur”. (Again,
if you are who you claim you are, you should not have to.)
>> But *that* [ds] "*defines* the geometry" is only your idea. So whether
>> your preference in terminology is justified is an open issue at this
>> point.
> It's not open to debate.
Apparently it is.
> […] in the context of _differential geometry_. There exist different
> concepts of "geometry", some of them not related to calculus on
> manifolds at all. They are not relevant to GR.
We are not discussing GR, and as for “differential geometry”, you have still
not substantiated that.
>>> […] The phrase "ds^2 is just a scalar that represents the
>>> geometry" is wrong: it's not a scalar, it's a rank-2 tensor.
>> As for that, I refer you to Tom Robert's excellent explanation in the
>> upper part¹ of <news:tfKdndZl7qz9PkXLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> ,
>> and rest my case. (We are both correct in our respective
>> interpretations.)
> I disagree because you still haven't shown me any viable alternative
Why should I repeat what Tom said? Can’t you read?
> except metaphors like "infinitesimal distance" and the like.
If you cared to read *properly*, I have written (and quoted) “infinitesimal
(infinitely small) change”.
>>> It's a scalar only in the sense that when it's operating of a pair of
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> vectors, it [...]
>> ^^^^^^^
>> What does that mean?
> Good grief. OK, I'll stop here.
Posting gibberish? That would be advisable indeed. Post in proper language
then. “it’s operating of a pair of vectors” is _not_.
(You did use a fixed-width font for display as it is advisable in Usenet —
to understand those markings, for example –, yes?)
PointedEars
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:05 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 22:28 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 22:47 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:01 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:04 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:27 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:28 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:40 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 00:21 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 10:39 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 12:59 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 13:12 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 08:46 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-24 19:54 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 01:20 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 01:39 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 11:12 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 08:37 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-02-24 07:16 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 22:31 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 06:30 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 09:11 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:13 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 09:38 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:44 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 09:50 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 11:51 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 09:57 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 12:05 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:19 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:13 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:21 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:05 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 09:48 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-02-25 14:06 -0500
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 12:35 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 21:44 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:37 -0500
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:11 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:44 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 06:57 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:59 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 07:36 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:45 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 07:37 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:36 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 07:50 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:47 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:44 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:47 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:00 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:09 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:29 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:43 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-26 23:04 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:59 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:19 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 10:27 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 17:55 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 12:13 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 11:37 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 12:56 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 08:03 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:13 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:26 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 09:36 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:50 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 09:54 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 20:40 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 19:44 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 12:20 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 20:58 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 13:02 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 12:31 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 22:40 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 10:54 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 07:30 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 17:46 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 08:51 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 17:01 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 07:34 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 15:15 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 19:54 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 08:48 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-28 09:13 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 10:09 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-06 10:56 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:19 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 09:24 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:34 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 09:44 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 19:12 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 10:19 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 11:17 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 17:06 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 17:54 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 19:41 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-04 01:17 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:12 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:53 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 22:19 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 21:36 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 11:14 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 18:32 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:22 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:02 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:08 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:19 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:27 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:04 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-11 13:33 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 22:49 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:20 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-05 05:24 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 21:36 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 22:50 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-05 11:24 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 20:07 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 14:49 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 21:40 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 18:58 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 14:04 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:46 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 22:21 -0600
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:42 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-26 20:00 +0100
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:03 +0000
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 19:36 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:36 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:33 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 12:05 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:47 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 14:16 -0800
Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:02 -0800
csiph-web