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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #374784 > unrolled thread

Lagranian Method Revisited

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

Contents

  Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 00:27 -0800
    Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Gertrude Kräuter <gertk@bundesadler.org> - 2016-01-25 16:59 +0000
      Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-01-25 23:03 +0100
        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:44 -0600
        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:24 -0800
    Re: Lagranian Method Revisited alsor@interia.pl - 2016-01-25 09:05 -0800
    Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 21:44 -0800
      Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:10 -0800
        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 00:36 -0800
          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 22:37 -0800
            Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 23:29 -0800
              Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 23:57 -0800
                Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 01:55 -0800
                  Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 09:50 -0800
                    Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 13:30 -0800
                      Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-27 22:06 +0000
                        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-27 22:16 +0000
                      Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 23:17 -0800
                      Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 23:49 -0800
                        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:56 -0800
                          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:45 -0800
                            Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:19 -0800
                              Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:54 -0800
                                Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 15:32 -0800
                                  Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 15:59 -0800
                                    Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:57 -0800
                                      Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 22:24 -0800
                                        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:38 -0800
                                          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 21:39 -0800
                                            Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:01 -0800
                                            Re: Lagranian Method Revisited shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-01 18:46 +0000
                                              Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 11:27 -0800
                              Re: Lagranian Method Revisited dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-01-30 09:41 -0800
                                Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Polikwaptiwa <polikw@polikwamail.org> - 2016-01-30 17:49 +0000
                        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 15:28 -0800
                          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 15:52 -0800
                      Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-29 12:46 -0600
                        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-29 12:56 -0600
                          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 19:02 +0000
                          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 11:08 -0800
                        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 18:58 +0000
                          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 11:17 -0800
              Re: Lagranian Method Revisited alsor@interia.pl - 2016-01-27 10:27 -0800
                Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 13:33 -0800
                  Re: Lagranian Method Revisited alsor@interia.pl - 2016-01-31 15:16 -0800
                    Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 15:29 -0800
                      Re: Lagranian Method Revisited alsor@interia.pl - 2016-01-31 16:41 -0800
                        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 18:42 -0800
                          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-03 10:31 -0800
                      Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 23:20 -0800
                        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 11:20 -0800
                          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-09 16:02 -0800
                            Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 16:21 -0800
                              Re: Lagranian Method Revisited alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-10 10:18 -0800
                                Re: Lagranian Method Revisited oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:32 -0800
                                  Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 22:28 -0800
                                  Re: Lagranian Method Revisited alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-11 09:39 -0800
                                    Re: Lagranian Method Revisited oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 09:45 -0800
                                      Re: Lagranian Method Revisited alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-12 11:36 -0800
                                        Re: Lagranian Method Revisited oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 00:47 -0800
                                          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:18 -0600
                                            Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 22:19 +0000
                                            Re: Lagranian Method Revisited alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-14 14:37 -0800
                          Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:06 -0800
                            Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 12:54 -0800
                              Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 13:00 -0800
                                Re: Lagranian Method Revisited Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 17:57 -0800
                                  Re: Lagranian Method Revisited JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 19:03 -0800
    Re: Lagranian Method Revisited David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 02:03 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#375168

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 1/27/16 1/27/16 - 3:30 PM, JanPB wrote:
>> Again, staticity does not imply time independence of the g_ij, this is
>> a common bit of sloppiness but for the third time, here is a simple
>> counterexample of a static metric (Minkowski flat, in fact) which
>> nevertheless has a time-dependent coefficient:
>>
>>      ds^2 = -T^2 dT^2 + dX^2
> 
> Yes. In GR, "static" means the manifold has a timelike Killing vector.

You mean it means steady-state.

> For coordinates in which the metric components are independent of time,
> the time coordinate _IS_ a timelike Killing vector. But as has been said
> many times, there is no necessity of using such coordinates -- the line
> element above is for the manifestly static Minkowski manifold, but using
> coordinates in which T is not a timelike Killing vector.

If there is no necessity, then you contradict what JanPB said.

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

#375175

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:58:35 AM UTC-8, Juan Sebastián wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> > For coordinates in which the metric components are independent of time,
> > the time coordinate _IS_ a timelike Killing vector. But as has been said
> > many times, there is no necessity of using such coordinates -- the line
> > element above is for the manifestly static Minkowski manifold, but using
> > coordinates in which T is not a timelike Killing vector.
> 
> If there is no necessity, then you contradict what JanPB said.

I think Tom meant this generically: any coordinates are allowed in tensor 
equations (but only some of them make the _calculations_ easy).

--
Jan

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

#374949

W dniu środa, 27 stycznia 2016 08:29:24 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:37:30 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 12:36:35 AM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > 
> > > > The Euler-Lagrange equations are pretty much what govern the
> > > > physical laws discovered by the self-claimed scientists.  The
> > > > Lagrangian method (to derive the special equations) was
> > > > discovered during Euler's time that was slightly before Newton.
> > > > <shrug>
> > >
> > > > It starts with the following action as an integral of a
> > > > Lagrangian (density to this action) with respect to instances
> > > > (time).  <shrug>
> > >
> > > > **  A = Integral(T1, T2)[L dt]
> > >
> > > > Where
> > >
> > > > **  A = action accumulated from T1 to T2
> > > > **  T1 = starting instance
> > > > **  T2 = ending instance
> > > > **  L = Lagrangian
> > > > **  dt = discrete instance
> > >
> > > > For a special path, s, there exists a stationary condition to
> > > > this action from T1 to T2 along this path.  So,
> > >
> > > > **  dA/ds = 0, definition of stationary action (min, max, saddle)
> > >
> > > > Or
> > >
> > > > **  Integral(T1, T2)[@L/@s dt] = 0
> > >
> > > > Where
> > >
> > > > **  @ = partial derivative operator
> > >
> > > > Now, you can choose to describe L in an observer's coordinate
> > > >  system, [q], instead of invariant geometry, s.  If L is also a
> > > > function of (ds/dt), the above can be rewritten as follows.
> > > > <shrug>
> > >
> > > > **  Integral(T1, T2)[(@L/@s+ @L/@(ds/dt)) dt] = 0
> > >
> > > > Applying integration by parts, we have
> > >
> > > > **  @L/@(ds/dt)[T1, T2] +
> > > >      Integral(T1, T2)[(@L/@s - d(@L/@(ds/dt))/dt) dt] = 0
> > >
> > > > The fixed points at T1 and T2 are just nonsense.  In reality, the
> > > > mathematics says when (@L/@(ds/dt) at T1) = (@L/@(ds/dt) at T2),
> > > > the above equation simplify into the equation below.  <shrug>
> > >
> > > > **  Integral(T1, T2)[(@L/@s - d(@L/@(ds/dt))/dt) dt] = 0
> > >
> > > > Where
> > >
> > > > **  @L/@(ds/dt)[T1, T2] = 0
> > >
> > > > Thus, the Euler-Lagrange equation can be derived as follows where
> > > > it is true between T1 and T2 that the specific condition
> > > > described above must be met.  It is not the fixed end points as
> > > > the self-styled physicists have proclaimed.  <shrug>
> > >
> > > > **  @L/@s - d(@L/@(ds/dt))/dt = 0
> > >
> > > > Where
> > >
> > > > **  @L/@(ds/dt) at T1 = @L/@(ds/dt) at T2
> > >
> > > > So, when dealing with Mercury's perihelion advance, the
> > > > Euler-Lagrange equation cannot possibly apply since with
> > > > advancing perihelion, there is no way to establish the condition
> > > > required of the Euler-Lagrange equation.  The whole fixed,
> > > > coherent derivation of Mercury's perihelion advance is just a
> > > > SCAM!  <shrug>
> > 
> > > No. It's the LSD version of it :-)
> > 
> > This is a ridiculous comment from an imbecile who knows no math about differential geometry but myths.  It is the same imbecile who raises objection when Koobee Wublee declared to use the polar coordinate system to describe a geometry.  What an imbecile whether on LSD or not!  <shrug>
> 
> You can use polar coordinates but they are not the whole story. Before solving
> Einstein's equation one makes more coordinate changes to make the metric diagonal.
> (The Einstein equation itself does not necessarily guarantee the diagonal form.)
> 
> It is this extra coordinate change that introduces certain new artifacts:
> 
> 1. a radial coordinate shift so that Schwarzschild's "r=0' no longer refers to the origin
> but is a locus of points forming a sphere, see https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2N1X7SgQnLRV1otWnE2T2F6aEk 

Another stupid nonsense...

a transform type of;
r = r - a, is just a spimple translation alnog r in the polar coord...

therefore the so-called standard Schwarzchild's solution
is just a translated version of the oryginal solution,
where the r parameter is limited: r > rs.

the region r < 2m, simply doesnt exists in the solution,
and the point r = 2m is just the place of the mass m,
which is in standard polar cood. for r = 0.
 

 
> 2. the metric tensor extends over r=0 (i.e. the singularity there is not real).
> 
> --
> Jan

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

#374973

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 27 stycznia 2016 08:29:24 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:37:30 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 12:36:35 AM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The Euler-Lagrange equations are pretty much what govern the
> > > > > physical laws discovered by the self-claimed scientists.  The
> > > > > Lagrangian method (to derive the special equations) was
> > > > > discovered during Euler's time that was slightly before Newton.
> > > > > <shrug>
> > > >
> > > > > It starts with the following action as an integral of a
> > > > > Lagrangian (density to this action) with respect to instances
> > > > > (time).  <shrug>
> > > >
> > > > > **  A = Integral(T1, T2)[L dt]
> > > >
> > > > > Where
> > > >
> > > > > **  A = action accumulated from T1 to T2
> > > > > **  T1 = starting instance
> > > > > **  T2 = ending instance
> > > > > **  L = Lagrangian
> > > > > **  dt = discrete instance
> > > >
> > > > > For a special path, s, there exists a stationary condition to
> > > > > this action from T1 to T2 along this path.  So,
> > > >
> > > > > **  dA/ds = 0, definition of stationary action (min, max, saddle)
> > > >
> > > > > Or
> > > >
> > > > > **  Integral(T1, T2)[@L/@s dt] = 0
> > > >
> > > > > Where
> > > >
> > > > > **  @ = partial derivative operator
> > > >
> > > > > Now, you can choose to describe L in an observer's coordinate
> > > > >  system, [q], instead of invariant geometry, s.  If L is also a
> > > > > function of (ds/dt), the above can be rewritten as follows.
> > > > > <shrug>
> > > >
> > > > > **  Integral(T1, T2)[(@L/@s+ @L/@(ds/dt)) dt] = 0
> > > >
> > > > > Applying integration by parts, we have
> > > >
> > > > > **  @L/@(ds/dt)[T1, T2] +
> > > > >      Integral(T1, T2)[(@L/@s - d(@L/@(ds/dt))/dt) dt] = 0
> > > >
> > > > > The fixed points at T1 and T2 are just nonsense.  In reality, the
> > > > > mathematics says when (@L/@(ds/dt) at T1) = (@L/@(ds/dt) at T2),
> > > > > the above equation simplify into the equation below.  <shrug>
> > > >
> > > > > **  Integral(T1, T2)[(@L/@s - d(@L/@(ds/dt))/dt) dt] = 0
> > > >
> > > > > Where
> > > >
> > > > > **  @L/@(ds/dt)[T1, T2] = 0
> > > >
> > > > > Thus, the Euler-Lagrange equation can be derived as follows where
> > > > > it is true between T1 and T2 that the specific condition
> > > > > described above must be met.  It is not the fixed end points as
> > > > > the self-styled physicists have proclaimed.  <shrug>
> > > >
> > > > > **  @L/@s - d(@L/@(ds/dt))/dt = 0
> > > >
> > > > > Where
> > > >
> > > > > **  @L/@(ds/dt) at T1 = @L/@(ds/dt) at T2
> > > >
> > > > > So, when dealing with Mercury's perihelion advance, the
> > > > > Euler-Lagrange equation cannot possibly apply since with
> > > > > advancing perihelion, there is no way to establish the condition
> > > > > required of the Euler-Lagrange equation.  The whole fixed,
> > > > > coherent derivation of Mercury's perihelion advance is just a
> > > > > SCAM!  <shrug>
> > > 
> > > > No. It's the LSD version of it :-)
> > > 
> > > This is a ridiculous comment from an imbecile who knows no math about differential geometry but myths.  It is the same imbecile who raises objection when Koobee Wublee declared to use the polar coordinate system to describe a geometry.  What an imbecile whether on LSD or not!  <shrug>
> > 
> > You can use polar coordinates but they are not the whole story. Before solving
> > Einstein's equation one makes more coordinate changes to make the metric diagonal.
> > (The Einstein equation itself does not necessarily guarantee the diagonal form.)
> > 
> > It is this extra coordinate change that introduces certain new artifacts:
> > 
> > 1. a radial coordinate shift so that Schwarzschild's "r=0' no longer refers to the origin
> > but is a locus of points forming a sphere, see https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2N1X7SgQnLRV1otWnE2T2F6aEk 
> 
> Another stupid nonsense...
> 
> a transform type of;
> r = r - a, is just a spimple translation alnog r in the polar coord...
> 
> therefore the so-called standard Schwarzchild's solution
> is just a translated version of the oryginal solution,
> where the r parameter is limited: r > rs.

The extra coordinate change I'm talking about is not just a shift in r.
It also involves a logarithmic-like transformation of the time coordinate
with the logarithm blowing up at the horizon (that's why the coordinate
singularity ends up there).

> the region r < 2m, simply doesnt exists in the solution,
> and the point r = 2m is just the place of the mass m,
> which is in standard polar cood. for r = 0.

False.

--
Jan

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

#375319

W dniu środa, 27 stycznia 2016 22:33:27 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > a transform type of;
> > r = r - a, is just a spimple translation alnog r in the polar coord...
> > 
> > therefore the so-called standard Schwarzchild's solution
> > is just a translated version of the oryginal solution,
> > where the r parameter is limited: r > rs.
> 
> The extra coordinate change I'm talking about is not just a shift in r.
> It also involves a logarithmic-like transformation of the time coordinate
> with the logarithm blowing up at the horizon (that's why the coordinate
> singularity ends up there).

It blows up in the center, ie. r = 0,
what is shifted to the r = 2m in the standardised form.

The regon r < 0 simply dosnt exists in a any geometry...
you are just a full cretin in the math.
 
> > the region r < 2m, simply doesnt exists in the solution,
> > and the point r = 2m is just the place of the mass m,
> > which is in standard polar cood. for r = 0.
> 
> False.

r -> 0 for m -> 0,
it's just the great fallacy, which confused idiots for 100 years.

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

#375320

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 3:16:29 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 27 stycznia 2016 22:33:27 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > a transform type of;
> > > r = r - a, is just a spimple translation alnog r in the polar coord...
> > > 
> > > therefore the so-called standard Schwarzchild's solution
> > > is just a translated version of the oryginal solution,
> > > where the r parameter is limited: r > rs.
> > 
> > The extra coordinate change I'm talking about is not just a shift in r.
> > It also involves a logarithmic-like transformation of the time coordinate
> > with the logarithm blowing up at the horizon (that's why the coordinate
> > singularity ends up there).
> 
> It blows up in the center, ie. r = 0,
> what is shifted to the r = 2m in the standardised form.
> 
> The regon r < 0 simply dosnt exists in a any geometry...
> you are just a full cretin in the math.

You haven't understood this completely yet. I'll post more on that later.

> > > the region r < 2m, simply doesnt exists in the solution,
> > > and the point r = 2m is just the place of the mass m,
> > > which is in standard polar cood. for r = 0.
> > 
> > False.
> 
> r -> 0 for m -> 0,
> it's just the great fallacy, which confused idiots for 100 years.

No, you are the confused one. For now just trust me.

--
Jan

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

#375323

W dniu poniedziałek, 1 lutego 2016 00:30:00 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 3:16:29 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 27 stycznia 2016 22:33:27 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > a transform type of;
> > > > r = r - a, is just a spimple translation alnog r in the polar coord...
> > > > 
> > > > therefore the so-called standard Schwarzchild's solution
> > > > is just a translated version of the oryginal solution,
> > > > where the r parameter is limited: r > rs.
> > > 
> > > The extra coordinate change I'm talking about is not just a shift in r.
> > > It also involves a logarithmic-like transformation of the time coordinate
> > > with the logarithm blowing up at the horizon (that's why the coordinate
> > > singularity ends up there).
> > 
> > It blows up in the center, ie. r = 0,
> > what is shifted to the r = 2m in the standardised form.
> > 
> > The regon r < 0 simply dosnt exists in a any geometry...
> > you are just a full cretin in the math.
> 
> You haven't understood this completely yet. I'll post more on that later.
> 
> > > > the region r < 2m, simply doesnt exists in the solution,
> > > > and the point r = 2m is just the place of the mass m,
> > > > which is in standard polar cood. for r = 0.
> > > 
> > > False.
> > 
> > r -> 0 for m -> 0,
> > it's just the great fallacy, which confused idiots for 100 years.
> 
> No, you are the confused one. For now just trust me.
> 
> --
> Jan

I have facked the GR long time ago.
It's just a shit... no any physics.

BTW. The metrices in the relativity,
can describe only the light propagation...
no any so-called 'spacetime geomety' exists.

The end... of the GR sztory. :)

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

#375326

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 4:41:08 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 1 lutego 2016 00:30:00 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 3:16:29 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu środa, 27 stycznia 2016 22:33:27 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > a transform type of;
> > > > > r = r - a, is just a spimple translation alnog r in the polar coord...
> > > > > 
> > > > > therefore the so-called standard Schwarzchild's solution
> > > > > is just a translated version of the oryginal solution,
> > > > > where the r parameter is limited: r > rs.
> > > > 
> > > > The extra coordinate change I'm talking about is not just a shift in r.
> > > > It also involves a logarithmic-like transformation of the time coordinate
> > > > with the logarithm blowing up at the horizon (that's why the coordinate
> > > > singularity ends up there).
> > > 
> > > It blows up in the center, ie. r = 0,
> > > what is shifted to the r = 2m in the standardised form.
> > > 
> > > The regon r < 0 simply dosnt exists in a any geometry...
> > > you are just a full cretin in the math.
> > 
> > You haven't understood this completely yet. I'll post more on that later.
> > 
> > > > > the region r < 2m, simply doesnt exists in the solution,
> > > > > and the point r = 2m is just the place of the mass m,
> > > > > which is in standard polar cood. for r = 0.
> > > > 
> > > > False.
> > > 
> > > r -> 0 for m -> 0,
> > > it's just the great fallacy, which confused idiots for 100 years.
> > 
> > No, you are the confused one. For now just trust me.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> I have facked the GR long time ago.
> It's just a shit... no any physics.

Stop dreaming and act like an adult.

> BTW. The metrices in the relativity,
> can describe only the light propagation...
> no any so-called 'spacetime geomety' exists.
> 
> The end... of the GR sztory. :)

Not even wrong.

--
Jan

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

#375484

W dniu poniedziałek, 1 lutego 2016 03:42:12 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
 
> > I have facked the GR long time ago.
> > It's just a shit... no any physics.
> 
> Stop dreaming and act like an adult.
> 
> > BTW. The metrices in the relativity,
> > can describe only the light propagation...
> > no any so-called 'spacetime geomety' exists.
> > 
> > The end... of the GR sztory. :)
> 
> Not even wrong.

Indeed: full truth can't be wrong in any way, even even.

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

#375822

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 3:30:00 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:

> No, you are the confused one. For now just trust me.

It is more than a week.  Where is the set of differential equations that represents the field equations without any coordinate system?  Has Jan the relativistic moron given up?  Please advise and update.  <shrug>

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

#375864

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 11:20:40 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 3:30:00 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> 
> > No, you are the confused one. For now just trust me.
> 
> It is more than a week.  Where is the set of differential equations that represents the field equations without any coordinate system?  Has Jan the relativistic moron given up?  Please advise and update.  <shrug>

No, just being busy. The subject is quite subtle and it must involve some
discussion of extending spacetime geometries. This alone is a source of
endless confusion. I'll have something written soon, I'll post it on a
new thread but I'll post a note here as well.

--
Jan

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

#375894

W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 20:20:03 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 11:20:40 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 3:30:00 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > 
> > > No, you are the confused one. For now just trust me.
> > 
> > It is more than a week.  Where is the set of differential equations that represents the field equations without any coordinate system?  Has Jan the relativistic moron given up?  Please advise and update.  <shrug>
> 
> No, just being busy. The subject is quite subtle and it must involve some
> discussion of extending spacetime geometries. This alone is a source of
> endless confusion. I'll have something written soon, I'll post it on a
> new thread but I'll post a note here as well.
> 
> --
> Jan

Nonsense.
The math is just about these so-called invariances in physics,
ie. about completely different things, what you think.

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

#375896

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 4:02:48 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 20:20:03 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 11:20:40 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 3:30:00 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > 
> > > > No, you are the confused one. For now just trust me.
> > > 
> > > It is more than a week.  Where is the set of differential equations that represents the field equations without any coordinate system?  Has Jan the relativistic moron given up?  Please advise and update.  <shrug>
> > 
> > No, just being busy. The subject is quite subtle and it must involve some
> > discussion of extending spacetime geometries. This alone is a source of
> > endless confusion. I'll have something written soon, I'll post it on a
> > new thread but I'll post a note here as well.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> Nonsense.
> The math is just about these so-called invariances in physics,
> ie. about completely different things, what you think.

You probably haven't noticed it, but you've just commented on the content
of an article that hasn't been written yet.

--
Jan

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

#375981

W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 01:21:30 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> You probably haven't noticed it, but you've just commented on the content
> of an article that hasn't been written yet.

Very well - any such stupid article can be destroyed in advance. ;)

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

#375985

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 6:18:25 PM UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 01:21:30 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> 
> > You probably haven't noticed it, but you've just commented on the content
> > of an article that hasn't been written yet.
> 
> Very well - any such stupid article can be destroyed in advance. ;)

The news tomorrow will contain an announcement that scientists have discovered magic moonbeams based on an idea lately dumped on Albert but given the sciency name of 'gravitational waves'.

From my seat it is just a journey into a linguistic oblivion that began fairly recently as mathematicians eventually squeezed out the theorists even when the theorists themselves had misgivings -

"A Langrangian is not a physical thing;it is a mathematical thing - a 
kind of differential equation to be exact.But physics and maths are so 
closely connected these days that it is hard to separate the numbers 
from the things they describe.In fact,a month after [Philip] 
Morrison's remarks,Nobel Prize winner Burton Richter of the Stanford 
Linear Accelerator Center said something that eerily echoed it: " 
Mathematics is a language that is used to describe nature" he said 
"But the theorists are beginning to think it is nature.To them the 
Langrangians are the reality " Discover Magazine ,1983 

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

#376008

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 10:32:10 AM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

> "A Langrangian is not a physical thing;it is a mathematical thing - a 
> kind of differential equation to be exact.But physics and maths are so 
> closely connected these days that it is hard to separate the numbers 
> from the things they describe.In fact,a month after [Philip] 
> Morrison's remarks,Nobel Prize winner Burton Richter of the Stanford 
> Linear Accelerator Center said something that eerily echoed it: " 
> Mathematics is a language that is used to describe nature" he said 
> "But the theorists are beginning to think it is nature.To them the 
> Langrangians are the reality " Discover Magazine ,1983

Yes, for example, the Lagrangian below that Hilbert had pulled out of his ass that derives the Einstein field equations offers no correlations to reality, and no self-styled physicists really care about this issue.  <shrug>

**  L = (k R + rho) sqrt(- det([g]))

Where

**  k = constant
**  R = Ricci scalar
**  rho = mass density
**  [g] = matrix that represents the metric
**  det([g]) = determinant of [g]

The self-styled physicists managed to create universes from something they are hopeless fvcking clueless about.  <shrug?

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

#376033

W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 19:32:10 UTC+1 użytkownik oriel36 napisał:
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 6:18:25 PM UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 01:21:30 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > 
> > > You probably haven't noticed it, but you've just commented on the content
> > > of an article that hasn't been written yet.
> > 
> > Very well - any such stupid article can be destroyed in advance. ;)
> 
> The news tomorrow will contain an announcement that scientists have discovered magic moonbeams based on an idea lately dumped on Albert but given the sciency name of 'gravitational waves'.
> 
> From my seat it is just a journey into a linguistic oblivion that began fairly recently as mathematicians eventually squeezed out the theorists even when the theorists themselves had misgivings -

Stupid people always discover, what they want to discover.

The famous 'half spin' fallacy and the so-called Bell's
(pseudo)theorem are nice examples of such fallacious practice.

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

#376035

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:39:21 PM UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 19:32:10 UTC+1 użytkownik oriel36 napisał:
> > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 6:18:25 PM UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 01:21:30 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > 
> > > > You probably haven't noticed it, but you've just commented on the content
> > > > of an article that hasn't been written yet.
> > > 
> > > Very well - any such stupid article can be destroyed in advance. ;)
> > 
> > The news tomorrow will contain an announcement that scientists have discovered magic moonbeams based on an idea lately dumped on Albert but given the sciency name of 'gravitational waves'.
> > 
> > From my seat it is just a journey into a linguistic oblivion that began fairly recently as mathematicians eventually squeezed out the theorists even when the theorists themselves had misgivings -
> 
> Stupid people always discover, what they want to discover.
> 
> The famous 'half spin' fallacy and the so-called Bell's
> (pseudo)theorem are nice examples of such fallacious practice.

You are from Poland, am I right ?.

A famous countryman of yours discovered that it was possible to infer a Sun-centered system by concentrating on relative speeds between a faster moving Earth and slower moving outer planets where those planets fall temporarily behind in view as the Earth overtakes them -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The fact is that neither you nor the rest of your Polish countrymen protected this main argument for the Earth's motion and a Sun-centered system and that is a national disgrace.

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

#376132

W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 18:45:25 UTC+1 użytkownik oriel36 napisał:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:39:21 PM UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 19:32:10 UTC+1 użytkownik oriel36 napisał:
> > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 6:18:25 PM UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 01:21:30 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > 
> > > > > You probably haven't noticed it, but you've just commented on the content
> > > > > of an article that hasn't been written yet.
> > > > 
> > > > Very well - any such stupid article can be destroyed in advance. ;)
> > > 
> > > The news tomorrow will contain an announcement that scientists have discovered magic moonbeams based on an idea lately dumped on Albert but given the sciency name of 'gravitational waves'.
> > > 
> > > From my seat it is just a journey into a linguistic oblivion that began fairly recently as mathematicians eventually squeezed out the theorists even when the theorists themselves had misgivings -
> > 
> > Stupid people always discover, what they want to discover.
> > 
> > The famous 'half spin' fallacy and the so-called Bell's
> > (pseudo)theorem are nice examples of such fallacious practice.
> 
> You are from Poland, am I right ?.
> 
> A famous countryman of yours discovered that it was possible to infer a Sun-centered system by concentrating on relative speeds between a faster moving Earth and slower moving outer planets where those planets fall temporarily behind in view as the Earth overtakes them -

That fact has been known even in the ancient world already.
But the western stupidity is big - very very big,
so big, that any rational man can't live there.

Therefore Copernicus had to be from the east.

 
> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
> The fact is that neither you nor the rest of your Polish countrymen protected this main argument for the Earth's motion and a Sun-centered system and that is a national disgrace.

Copernicus only in Poland could live and think .. quite freely.
In the west have been burned at the stake, along with their ideas.

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

#376198

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 7:36:09 PM UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 11 lutego 2016 18:45:25 UTC+1 użytkownik oriel36 napisał:
> > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:39:21 PM UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 19:32:10 UTC+1 użytkownik oriel36 napisał:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 6:18:25 PM UTC, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > > > W dniu środa, 10 lutego 2016 01:21:30 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > You probably haven't noticed it, but you've just commented on the content
> > > > > > of an article that hasn't been written yet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Very well - any such stupid article can be destroyed in advance. ;)
> > > > 
> > > > The news tomorrow will contain an announcement that scientists have discovered magic moonbeams based on an idea lately dumped on Albert but given the sciency name of 'gravitational waves'.
> > > > 
> > > > From my seat it is just a journey into a linguistic oblivion that began fairly recently as mathematicians eventually squeezed out the theorists even when the theorists themselves had misgivings -
> > > 
> > > Stupid people always discover, what they want to discover.
> > > 
> > > The famous 'half spin' fallacy and the so-called Bell's
> > > (pseudo)theorem are nice examples of such fallacious practice.
> > 
> > You are from Poland, am I right ?.
> > 
> > A famous countryman of yours discovered that it was possible to infer a Sun-centered system by concentrating on relative speeds between a faster moving Earth and slower moving outer planets where those planets fall temporarily behind in view as the Earth overtakes them -
> 
> That fact has been known even in the ancient world already.
> But the western stupidity is big - very very big,
> so big, that any rational man can't live there.
> 
> Therefore Copernicus had to be from the east.
> 
>  
> > http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
> > The fact is that neither you nor the rest of your Polish countrymen protected this main argument for the Earth's motion and a Sun-centered system and that is a national disgrace.
> 
> Copernicus only in Poland could live and think .. quite freely.
> In the west have been burned at the stake, along with their ideas.


I see one participant scream about science being about models and probably unbeknownst to himself that is what empiricism is rather than science or astronomy. The emergence of modeling came at the expense of astronomy insofar as the great discovery of Copernicus was accounting for the observed behavior of the outer planets as the faster Earth overtook them hence the sun-centered system was inferred from this perspective -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Kepler cam along and extended this observation to include multiple passes of Mars by the Earth -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth, 
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils, 
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits 
,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time 
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many 
times as the 'garlands'  you see looped towards the 
center,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the 
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times "   Kepler 

The working principles of planetary dynamics and a Sun-centered system was based on judging observations using a moving Earth hence the modeling is consistent with this perspective .

Along comes Sir Isaac and changes things to suit himself. He thinks (and they still do) that Kepler's representation of retrogrades is geocentric and if you plonk the Sun in the middle of the diagram retrogrades disappear like so -

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/0/0e/Copernicus_system.gif/300px-Copernicus_system.gif

This is the only way to account for Newton's illegal form of double modeling where he  created a relative space and motion for observations seen from Earth as opposed to absolute space and motions for hypothetical observations seen from the Sun -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes 
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are 
always seen direct,..." Newton 


Mathematicians neither know nor care as they exist in a world inside their own heads so there is perhaps no audience for what happened  that some of the greatest astronomical works were destroyed for little more than empirical pretense. I know what happened and why it is dangerous to maintain the pretense using indiscriminate modeling with no pedigree .

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web