Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #369069 > unrolled thread

modified EFE

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  modified EFE chemguy <doulting@shaw.ca> - 2015-11-04 13:48 -0800
    Re: modified EFE Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-05 12:39 -0600
      Re: modified EFE chemguy <doulting@shaw.ca> - 2015-11-05 16:03 -0800
    Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 13:01 -0800
      Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 14:16 -0800
        Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 23:37 -0800
        Re: modified EFE Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 13:08 +0000
        Re: modified EFE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 16:06 -0800
          Re: modified EFE Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 00:20 +0000
            Re: modified EFE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 16:37 -0800
              Re: modified EFE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 16:39 -0800
                Re: modified EFE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 16:49 -0800
            Re: modified EFE Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 12:28 -0600
              Re: modified EFE Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 18:55 +0000
                Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 11:58 -0800
                  Re: modified EFE Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-09 21:10 +0100
                  Re: modified EFE Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 20:14 +0000
                    Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 12:56 -0800
                      Re: modified EFE Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 21:08 +0000
                        Re: modified EFE kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-09 16:42 -0500
                          Re: modified EFE Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 22:45 +0000
                            Re: modified EFE kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-09 18:17 -0500
                              Re: modified EFE Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-10 15:06 +0000
                                Re: modified EFE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-10 16:41 +0100
                                  Re: modified EFE Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-10 16:24 +0000
                        Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:04 -0800
                  Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 13:23 -0800
                    Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:06 -0800
                Re: modified EFE kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-09 16:33 -0500
                  Re: modified EFE Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 21:50 +0000
              Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 13:19 -0800
                Re: modified EFE kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-09 16:47 -0500
              Re: modified EFE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 19:16 -0800
                Re: modified EFE John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 19:24 -0800
                  Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 20:27 -0800
                Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 20:26 -0800
                  Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 00:30 -0800
                    Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 12:03 -0800
                      Re: modified EFE Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-10 21:55 +0000
                      Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 16:11 -0800
                        Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 20:50 -0800
                          Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 17:04 -0800
                            Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 18:41 -0800
                              Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 21:26 -0800
                                Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 13:06 -0800
                                  Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 00:03 -0800
                                    Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 00:14 -0800
                    Re: modified EFE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 15:07 -0600
                      Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 16:20 -0800
                        Re: modified EFE Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 19:35 -0600
                Re: modified EFE Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 22:45 -0600
                  Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 00:22 -0800
        Re: modified EFE Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:12 +0000
          Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 18:41 -0800
      Re: modified EFE Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 14:48 -0800
        Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 23:57 -0800
          Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 13:20 -0800
            Re: modified EFE Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 00:29 -0800
              Re: modified EFE JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 01:34 -0800
                Re: modified EFE Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-15 18:05 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#369625

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 4:11:23 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 12:03:54 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 12:30:56 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> 
> > > What Jan the relativistic moron is talking about is the invariant
> > > geometry at a specific point in spacetime.
> > 
> > No, I was talking about the tangent space which is just (smooth)
> > manifold theory plus linear algebra. There is no geometry involved in
> > those particular concepts.
> 
> Jan the relativistic moron does not realize itself describing the geometry of spacetime at a specific point in spacetime.  What does differential geometry address?  Hint: Geometry.  <shrug>

You've changed the subject (not sure if you've noticed).

> > > Remember that to describe or interpret any geometry, on must choose
> > > a coordinate system to do so.
> >
> > No, that's incorrect...
> 
> Nonsense.  There is no way to describe geometry without mathematics which involves using coordinate system.  <shrug>

Of course there is. I've mentioned just two of the plethora: defining geometry through
a variational problem and the Ricci flow. Of course you snipped it because you could
not deny it.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369737

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 8:50:33 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 4:11:23 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Jan the relativistic moron does not realize itself describing
> > the geometry of spacetime at a specific point in spacetime.  What
> > does differential geometry address?  Hint: Geometry.  <shrug>
>
> You've changed the subject (not sure if you've noticed).
>
> > Nonsense.  There is no way to describe geometry without
> > mathematics which involves using coordinate system.  <shrug>
> 
> Of course there is. I've mentioned just two of the plethora:
> defining geometry through a variational problem and the Ricci flow.
> Of course you snipped it because you could not deny it.

Jan's ramblings do not contain a single correct statement.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369748

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 5:04:32 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 8:50:33 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 4:11:23 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> 
> > > Jan the relativistic moron does not realize itself describing
> > > the geometry of spacetime at a specific point in spacetime.  What
> > > does differential geometry address?  Hint: Geometry.  <shrug>
> >
> > You've changed the subject (not sure if you've noticed).
> >
> > > Nonsense.  There is no way to describe geometry without
> > > mathematics which involves using coordinate system.  <shrug>
> > 
> > Of course there is. I've mentioned just two of the plethora:
> > defining geometry through a variational problem and the Ricci flow.
> > Of course you snipped it because you could not deny it.
> 
> Jan's ramblings do not contain a single correct statement.  <shrug>

Obviously you never studied connections defined by minimising the Yang-Mills action.
Ditto for the Ricci flow.

So what else is new.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369864

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 6:41:07 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 5:04:32 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 8:50:33 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 4:11:23 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > 
> > > > Jan the relativistic moron does not realize itself describing
> > > > the geometry of spacetime at a specific point in spacetime.  What
> > > > does differential geometry address?  Hint: Geometry.  <shrug>
> > >
> > > You've changed the subject (not sure if you've noticed).
> > >
> > > > Nonsense.  There is no way to describe geometry without
> > > > mathematics which involves using coordinate system.  <shrug>
> > > 
> > > Of course there is. I've mentioned just two of the plethora:
> > > defining geometry through a variational problem and the Ricci flow.
> > > Of course you snipped it because you could not deny it.
> > 
> > Jan's ramblings do not contain a single correct statement.  <shrug>
> 
> Obviously you never studied connections defined by minimising the Yang-Mills action.
> Ditto for the Ricci flow.
> 
> So what else is new.
> 
> --
> Jan

Irrelevant to GR.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370043

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:26:28 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 6:41:07 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 5:04:32 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 8:50:33 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 4:11:23 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Jan the relativistic moron does not realize itself describing
> > > > > the geometry of spacetime at a specific point in spacetime.  What
> > > > > does differential geometry address?  Hint: Geometry.  <shrug>
> > > >
> > > > You've changed the subject (not sure if you've noticed).
> > > >
> > > > > Nonsense.  There is no way to describe geometry without
> > > > > mathematics which involves using coordinate system.  <shrug>
> > > > 
> > > > Of course there is. I've mentioned just two of the plethora:
> > > > defining geometry through a variational problem and the Ricci flow.
> > > > Of course you snipped it because you could not deny it.
> > > 
> > > Jan's ramblings do not contain a single correct statement.  <shrug>
> > 
> > Obviously you never studied connections defined by minimising the Yang-Mills action.
> > Ditto for the Ricci flow.
> > 
> > So what else is new.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> Irrelevant to GR.  <shrug>

It doesn't matter - your claim was general: you said that tensors were matrices.

So now you are saying only GR tensors are matrices?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370087

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:06:19 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:26:28 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Irrelevant to GR.  <shrug>
> 
> It doesn't matter - your claim was general: you said that tensors
> were matrices. So now you are saying only GR tensors are matrices?

Matrices identified as tensors in differential geometry are nothing but matrices.  Treating them as tensors would never go wrong.  Prove Koobee Wublee's statement wrong.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370088

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:03:53 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:06:19 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:26:28 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> 
> > > Irrelevant to GR.  <shrug>
> > 
> > It doesn't matter - your claim was general: you said that tensors
> > were matrices. So now you are saying only GR tensors are matrices?
> 
> Matrices identified as tensors in differential geometry are nothing but matrices.

Ok, than take back the remark "Irrelevant to GR.  <shrug>".

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369577

On 11/10/2015 2:30 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> What Jan the relativistic moron is talking about is the invariant geometry at a
> specific point in spacetime.  Remember that to describe or interpret any geometry,
> on must choose a coordinate system to do so.

A basic introduction for those requiring an education, whether they 
think they do or not:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0346


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369598

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 1:07:13 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 2:30 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > What Jan the relativistic moron is talking about is the invariant
> > geometry at a specific point in spacetime.  Remember that to describe
> > or interpret any geometry, on must choose a coordinate system to do
> > so.
>
> A basic introduction for those requiring an education, whether they 
> think they do or not:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0346

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/76H5chhVoIs/AiSN-NE3FAAJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369601

On 11/10/2015 6:20 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 1:07:13 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/10/2015 2:30 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> What Jan the relativistic moron is talking about is the invariant
>>> geometry at a specific point in spacetime.  Remember that to describe
>>> or interpret any geometry, on must choose a coordinate system to do
>>> so.
>>
>> A basic introduction for those requiring an education, whether they
>> think they do or not:
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0346
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/76H5chhVoIs/AiSN-NE3FAAJ
>

Quoting your own statements that are made out of uneducated ignorance is 
not an asset, Koobee. You're an attention whore and you bicker because 
it's the only social interaction you know, and it's not very becoming.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369500

On 11/9/15 11/9/15   9:16 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> Let me try to break it down a bit.

You do not know enough to do that. All you can do is make mistakes and/or post
nonsense.


> Jan says that tensors are not matrices.  Specifically, that tensors are
> multilinear maps, while matrices are tables of numbers.

Yes. Jan is not the only person who says that; anybody who actually understands 
tensors and matrices would say that, because THAT IS WHAT TENSORS AND MATRICES ARE.


> A tensor can be
> represented numerically if and ONLY if the relevant vector space is
> selected.

No. The tensor cannot even be defined without specifying the relevant vector 
space (and often its dual space). But the COMPONENTS (those matrices KW is so 
confused about) can only be defined once one specifies A BASIS that spans the 
vector space.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369510

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 8:45:46 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/9/15, 9:16 PM, John Gogo wrote:

> > Jan says that tensors are not matrices.  Specifically, that tensors
> > are multilinear maps, while matrices are tables of numbers.

All the matrices identified by GR are mere tables of numbers.  They are indeed just matrices.  Again, treating all tensors of GR as matrices, you will not go wrong.  Prove Koobee Wublee wrong.  <shrug>

> Yes. Jan is not the only person who says that;

Yes, Jan the relativistic moron is not the only autistic moron around here.  <shrug>

> anybody who actually understands tensors and matrices would say that,
> because THAT IS WHAT TENSORS AND MATRICES ARE.

So, Tom should be able to prove Koobee Wublee wrong where Koobee Wublee treats all tensors as matrices.  Tom cannot because all matrices identified as tensors in GR are merely nothing but matrices.  <shrug>

> > A tensor can be represented numerically if and ONLY if the relevant
> > vector space is selected.
> 
> No. The tensor cannot even be defined without specifying the relevant
> vector space (and often its dual space).

This is the problem.  To specify a so-called tensor, the coordinate system must be already defined and shall never be deviated to another.  Yes, in this situation, you can specify any matrices as what is defined by GR.  In another words, the tensors are only valid in their invariant forms under a specific coordinate system and nothing else.  What happens if someone solves the tensor equations?  Well, all solutions must be referenced to the already defined coordinate system and nothing else.  This can only mean each solution of GR represents a unique and independent geometry USING THE ALREADY AGREED UPON COORDINATE SYSTEM AND NOTHING ELSE.  <shrug>

> But the COMPONENTS (those matrices KW is so confused about) can only
> be defined once one specifies A BASIS that spans the vector space.

Give the basis thing a break.  Matrices representing tensors such as the metric tensor already means the auto dot product of the basis.  Tom does not understand basic linear algebra.  Tom is only word salad --- a bullshit artist, a con-man, and a liar.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369726

JanPB wrote:

> No, it's a tensor equation (it equates two bilinear maps, or bilinear
> map _fields_ to be exact).

Common error, done by the newbeginners. There is no fields involved 
anywhere, since the nature of the tensor implicitly includes random 
position in space and time. (random as in Random Access Memory, not as in 
stochastic)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369749

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 4:12:21 PM UTC-8, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > No, it's a tensor equation (it equates two bilinear maps, or bilinear
> > map _fields_ to be exact).
> 
> Common error, done by the newbeginners. There is no fields involved 
> anywhere, since the nature of the tensor implicitly includes random 
> position in space and time. (random as in Random Access Memory, not as in 
> stochastic)

Not even wrong.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369248

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:01:29 AM UTC-10, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Now, using the Poisson equation as the boundary conditions, we arrive at: 
**  R = 8 pi G rho / c^2 
Where 
**  G = Newtonian gravitational constant 
That means: 
**  k = - 2 pi G / c^2 
Or 
**  [G] = - 2 pi G rho [g] / c^2 


Hello Koobee, 
The G is used as quoted from Newton. Einstein wrote in his book, "The Meaning of Relativity" that he copied G from Newton because that is experimental fact. He offered no theory of how weak gravity is, due to basic natural facts. Do you agree about G in relativity? It is not derived.
Folmsbee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369275

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 2:48:44 PM UTC-8, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 1:01:29 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > It is more like a different equation involved with matrices are
> > variables.  That should be no sweat since control system engineers
> > have been dealing with matrices long before the self-styled
> > physicists discovered matrices and decided to call them tensors
> > instead.  <shrug>
>
> > You can reduce the set of the field equations into a scalar
> > equation in Ricci scalar, but the single, concise equation becomes
> > less useful in solved the set of the field equations.  <shrug>
>
> > First, we write down the set of field equations in matrices below.
> > You can represent them in the form involving each element if you
> > wish.  <shrug>
>
> > **  [R] - R [g] / 2 = k [T], field equations
>
> > Or
>
> > **  [R]_ij - R [g]_ij / 2 = k rho [g]_ij
>
> > Where
>
> > **  [R] = matrix representing the Ricci tensor
> > **  [g] = matrix representing the metric tensor
> > **  R = Ricci scalar
> > **  [T] = rho [g], matrix representing the energy momentum tensor
> > **  [R]_ij = element of [R]
> > **  rho = mass density
> > **  k = constant
>
> > Recognizing the Ricci scalar as a dot product of two specific matrices,
>
> > **  R = [g^-1] * [R], Ricci scalar
>
> > Where
>
> > **  [g^-1] = inverse of [g]
> > **  [g^-1] * [R] = [g^-1]^ij [R]_ij, dot product of [g^-1] and [R]
>
> > The field equations can be rewritten as follows.  <shrug>
>
> > **  [g^-1] * [R] - R [g^-1] * [g] / 2 = k rho [g^-1] * [g]
>
> > Or
>
> > **  R = - 4 k rho
>
> > Where
>
> > **  [g^-1] * [R] = R, Ricci scalar
> > **  [g^-1] * [g] = 4 (number of dimensions)
>
> > Now, using the Poisson equation as the boundary conditions, we
> > arrive at:
>
> > **  R = 8 pi G rho / c^2
>
> Where
>
> > **  G = Newtonian gravitational constant
>
> > That means:
>
> > **  k = - 2 pi G / c^2
>
> > Or
>
> > **  [G] = - 2 pi G rho [g] / c^2
>
> > Or
>
> > **  [R] - R [g] / 2 = - 2 pi G [T] / c^2
>
> > Where
>
> > **  [G] = [R] - R [g] / 2 = Einstein tensor
>
> > Yes, the Einstein tensor should be a factor of a quarter less than
> > the self-styled physicists have fudged it to be.  <shrug>
>
> The G is used as quoted from Newton.

Yes, that is correct.  <shrug>

> Einstein wrote in his book, "The Meaning of Relativity" that he copied
> G from Newton because that is experimental fact.

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is not capable of performing any rudimentary scientific reasoning.  All the shit has come forth from the autistic retards who choose to indulge themselves in the religion of relativity.  Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar becomes the god of relativity, and this god would whisper garbage into the ears of the relativistic morons who worship the religion.  <shrug>

> He offered no theory of how weak gravity is, due to basic natural facts.
> Do you agree about G in relativity? It is not derived.

The fudging of G (gravitational constant, not to be confused with [G] the Einstein tensor) is strictly a boundary condition matching where the integration constants after solving the field equations would serve the roles to allow GR to degenerate into Newtonian law of gravity and nothing else.  <shrug>

For example, the Schwarzschild metric, a solution out of an infinite others, in its raw form is:

**  dS^2 = c^2 w (1 + k / r) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 + k / r) - r^2 dO^2

Where

**  dS = spacetime geometry
**  q, k = constants

It is found that in order for the raw Schwarzschild metric to satisfy Newtonian law of gravity, the integration constants must be of the following.  <shrug>

**  w = 1
**  k = - 2 G M / c^2 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370051

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:57:30 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> 
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is not capable of performing any rudimentary scientific reasoning.

Hahahaha! An idiot pontificating about someone infinitely smarter than he. Typical.

> All the shit has come forth from the autistic retards who choose to indulge themselves in the religion of relativity.

You are such an ignoramus. Why not simply switching to another hobby?

> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar

Your keyboard got its paste button stuck again.

> becomes the god of relativity, and this god would whisper garbage into the ears of the relativistic morons who worship the religion.  <shrug>

Garbage is all yours. Point is you have never understood anything here. This is the only
reason, BTW, you are able to post such monumental nonsense all the time. A person
even with a little understanding would know exactly when and where to stop.

> The fudging of G (gravitational constant, not to be confused with [G] the Einstein tensor) 

It's not any "fudging". You are don't know what you are talking about.

> For example, the Schwarzschild metric, a solution out of an infinite others,

There are no "infinite others" - you don't understand the mathematics underlying this
problem. In the spherically symmetric case there can only exist one tensor satisfying the
Einstein equation. It's a theorem in mathematics - I challenge you to find an error in this
theorem.

> in its raw form is:

"raw form"? Why "raw"?

> **  dS^2 = c^2 w (1 + k / r) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 + k / r) - r^2 dO^2
> 
> Where
> 
> **  dS = spacetime geometry

dS is not any "spacetime geometry", that's a sloppy, amateurish talk. ds^2 is the metric tensor 
(that's lower-case "s", the upper-case is traditionally reserved for volume forms, not line 
elements).

> It is found that in order for the raw Schwarzschild metric to satisfy Newtonian law of gravity, the integration constants must be of the following.  <shrug>
> 
> **  w = 1
> **  k = - 2 G M / c^2

Finally one correct statement in your entire post.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370090

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:20:14 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > You can reduce the set of the field equations into a scalar
> > equation in Ricci scalar, but the single, concise equation becomes
> > less useful in solved the set of the field equations.  <shrug>
>
> > First, we write down the set of field equations in matrices below.
> > You can represent them in the form involving each element if you
> > wish.  <shrug>
>
> > **  [R] - R [g] / 2 = k [T], field equations
>
> > Or
>
> > **  [R]_ij - R [g]_ij / 2 = k rho [g]_ij
>
> > Where
>
> > **  [R] = matrix representing the Ricci tensor
> > **  [g] = matrix representing the metric tensor
> > **  R = Ricci scalar
> > **  [T] = rho [g], matrix representing the energy momentum tensor
> > **  [R]_ij = element of [R]
> > **  rho = mass density
> > **  k = constant
>
> > Recognizing the Ricci scalar as a dot product of two specific matrices,
>
> > **  R = [g^-1] * [R], Ricci scalar
>
> > Where
>
> > **  [g^-1] = inverse of [g]
> > **  [g^-1] * [R] = [g^-1]^ij [R]_ij, dot product of [g^-1] and [R]
>
> > The field equations can be rewritten as follows.  <shrug>
>
> > **  [g^-1] * [R] - R [g^-1] * [g] / 2 = k rho [g^-1] * [g]
>
> > Or
>
> > **  R = - 4 k rho
>
> > Where
>
> > **  [g^-1] * [R] = R, Ricci scalar
> > **  [g^-1] * [g] = 4 (number of dimensions)
>
> > Now, using the Poisson equation as the boundary conditions, we
> > arrive at:
>
> > **  R = 8 pi G rho / c^2
>
> > Where
>
> > **  G = Newtonian gravitational constant
>
> > That means:
>
> > **  k = - 2 pi G / c^2
>
> > Or
>
> > **  [G] = - 2 pi G rho [g] / c^2
>
> > Or
>
> > **  [R] - R [g] / 2 = - 2 pi G [T] / c^2
>
> > Where
>
> > **  [G] = [R] - R [g] / 2 = Einstein tensor
>
> > Yes, the Einstein tensor should be a factor of a quarter less than
> > the self-styled physicists have fudged it to be.  <shrug>
>
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is not capable of
> > performing any rudimentary scientific reasoning.  All the shit has
> > come forth from the autistic retards who choose to indulge
> > themselves in the religion of relativity.  Einstein the nitwit, the
> > plagiarist, and the liar becomes the god of relativity, and this god
> > would whisper garbage into the ears of the relativistic morons who
> > worship the religion.  <shrug>
>
> > The fudging of G (gravitational constant, not to be confused with [G]
> > the Einstein tensor) is strictly a boundary condition matching where
> > the integration constants after solving the field equations would
> > serve the roles to allow GR to degenerate into Newtonian law of
> > gravity and nothing else.  <shrug>
>
> [babbling nonsense from Jan the relativistic moron snipped]

> > For example, the Schwarzschild metric, a solution out of an infinite
> > others, in its raw form is:
>
> > **  dS^2 = c^2 w (1 + k / r) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 + k / r) - r^2 dO^2
>
> > Where
>
> > **  dS = spacetime geometry
> > **  q, k = constants
>
> > It is found that in order for the raw Schwarzschild metric to satisfy
> > Newtonian law of gravity, the integration constants must be of the
> > following.  <shrug>
>
> > **  w = 1
> > **  k = - 2 G M / c^2
> 
> There are no "infinite others" - you don't understand the mathematics
> underlying this problem. In the spherically symmetric case there can
> only exist one tensor satisfying the Einstein equation. It's a theorem
> in mathematics - I challenge you to find an error in this theorem.

The following solution is also a solution to the field equations.  <shrug>

**  dS^2 = c^2 w dt^2 / (1 + k / r) - (1 + k / r) dr^2
         - r^2 (1 + k / r)^2 dO^2

> "raw form"? Why "raw"?

Stupid!  <shrug>

> dS is not any "spacetime geometry", that's a sloppy, amateurish talk.

Nonsense!  <shrug>

> ds^2 is the metric tensor

Wrong!  ds^2 is a scalar, but the metric tensor is a matrix.  Relativistic moron!  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370093

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:29:46 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:20:14 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> 
[...]
> > > It is found that in order for the raw Schwarzschild metric to satisfy
> > > Newtonian law of gravity, the integration constants must be of the
> > > following.  <shrug>
> >
> > > **  w = 1
> > > **  k = - 2 G M / c^2
> > 
> > There are no "infinite others" - you don't understand the mathematics
> > underlying this problem. In the spherically symmetric case there can
> > only exist one tensor satisfying the Einstein equation. It's a theorem
> > in mathematics - I challenge you to find an error in this theorem.
> 
> The following solution is also a solution to the field equations.  <shrug>
> 
> **  dS^2 = c^2 w dt^2 / (1 + k / r) - (1 + k / r) dr^2
>          - r^2 (1 + k / r)^2 dO^2

This tensor is a pullback of the usual one (meaning, both spacetimes are physically
identical).

> > "raw form"? Why "raw"?
> 
> Stupid!  <shrug>

You use sloppy terminology that's not used in the trade.

> > dS is not any "spacetime geometry", that's a sloppy, amateurish talk.
> 
> Nonsense!  <shrug>

dS is not geometry. I'm sorry I simply cannot do anything about this little factoid.

> > ds^2 is the metric tensor
> 
> Wrong!  ds^2 is a scalar, but the metric tensor is a matrix.

No, wrong. ds^2 is a symmetric rank-2 covariant tensor.

> Relativistic moron!  <shrug>

This phrase has been copyrighted by Maciej. It is your duty to come up with a different one.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370121

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik JanPB napisał:

>> **  dS^2 = c^2 w dt^2 / (1 + k / r) - (1 + k / r) dr^2
>>          - r^2 (1 + k / r)^2 dO^2
> 
> This tensor is a pullback of the usual one (meaning, both spacetimes are
> physically identical).

Hmmm, the job of the Tensor is to make the transition possible.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web