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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357865

Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:50:18 PM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 5:06:58 AM UTC+8, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Several centuries ago, Euler and Lagrange had worked out the necessary
> > mathematics just to find what the stationary actions are where
> > searching for the shortest distance falls into this application.
> > <shrug>
>
> > Mathematically, the subject is ridiculously simple:
>
> > **  Action = Sum(L dt) = Integral(L dt)
>
> > Where
>
> > **  Action = result of the overall action
> > **  L = Lagrangian or density of this action
>
> > If and only if the starting and the ending points are fixed, the
> > following Euler-Lagrange equation can be derived based on the
> > Lagrangian to find a stationary path leading to the overall action.
> > <shrug>
>
> > **  d(@L/@(dq/dt))/dt = @L/@q
>
> > Where
>
> > **  L = function of q, dq/dt
> > **  @ = partial derivative operator
>
> > It does not matter how a non-Euclidean geometry fares, whatever
> > still obeys the mathematics of the Lagrangian method described above.
> > <shrug>
>
> > To get to GR, one must identify a model of whatever moves through
> > whatever state of spacetime assuming the concept of spacetime is
> > valid.  Thus, working with Riemann's description of any possible types
> > of geometry including multidimensional ones that can curve to whatever
> > one's desire, we have the following.  <shrug>
> 
> > **  dS^2 = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j
>
> > Where
>
> > **  dS = whatever this geometry is
> > **  [g] = matrix that represents the metric
> > **  [q] = matrix that represents the coordinate system
> > **  []_ij, []^i, []^j = elements of the matric []
>
> > With that, it should not be too difficult to write down the action and
> > identifying the Lagrangian as the consequence:
>
> > **  Action = Integral(L dt)
>
> > Where
>
> > **  L = sqrt([g]_ij d[q]^i/dt d[q]^j/dt)
>
> > The mathematics from the above Lagrangian would be complex.
> > Christoffel cheated and found an easier way that is:
>
> > **  Action = Integral(L dS)
>
> > Where
>
> > **  L = sqrt([g]_ij d[q]^i/dS d[q]^j/dS) = 1
>
> > Or
>
> > **  L = [g]_ij d[q]^i/dS d[q]^j/dS
>
> > Then, Christoffel proceeded to derive the Christoffel symbols of both
> > kinds.  <shrug>
>
> > The problem in GR's case is that the action of accumulating spacetime
> > for photons is always null.  This is because spacetime for photon is
> > always zero.  Thus, effectively, GR predicts no photons can ever
> > propagate, and this prediction embarrassingly violates any mundane
> > observations by just about everyone.  At this stage, self-styled
> > physicists cannot proceed any further to derive their field equations.
> > <shrug>
>
> > These relativistic morons who worship GR as a religion just do not
> > understand the basic mathematics.  <shrug>
>
> I don't know the basics of classical mechanics yet. The notion of
> action, Lagrangian, etc are definitely on my "todo" list. General
> relativity will never be in my todo list. Why? For what? Learn an
> invalid theory just to TALK TO TOM ROBERTS:

The basic mathematics from GR is actually very satisfying in learning.  Koobee Wublee started to learn GR with a good faith that it must be valid all along.  Then, Koobee Wublee would not have dreamt that the hypothesis is nothing but a piece of shit.  <shrug>

> Rasjid: "Hello Tom Roberts, I finally have completed reading general
> relativity - have a complete understanding of it. Sorry to say, it has
> 99 errors; but just one overturns the theory. Can you help me publish
> in the Physics Review?"   
> Tom Roberts : "Then you must be wrong. PERIOD. First start with the
> elementary text "Linear General Relativity" by Paparious...then..."

LOL.  Tom is among the most ignorant of the relativistic morons.  ,shrug>
 
> Although I don't know the mathematics of general relativity, the very
> fact that space can be bent can never be right - space is the
> foundational dimension upon which our physics is built. So space is
> analogous to axioms in mathematics. You don't have a theorem in
> mathematics violating its very own axioms.

You are very correct.  Empty space has no properties and cannot bend.  That was first mentioned by Tesla.  However, what if the empty space is not empty but filled with Aether?  After all, the null results of the MMX can only be explained with the very existence of the absolute frame of reference.  One must respect such an experiment.  <shrug>

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 12:32 -0700
  Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 21:59 +0200
    Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 13:18 -0700
      Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 22:27 +0200
  Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 14:06 -0700
    Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 14:50 -0700
      Cretin raghead Chan Rasji perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-19 15:18 -0700
      Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 16:14 -0700
        Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 17:11 -0700
          Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 07:50 -0500
          Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 07:38 -0700
            Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-21 07:35 +0200
            Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-21 22:48 -0700
              Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. YBM <ybmess@nooos.fr.invalid> - 2015-07-22 14:03 +0200
                Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-22 07:37 -0700
                Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 07:54 -0700
                Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:22 -0500
                Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-22 07:46 -0700
              Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 05:45 -0700
            Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 23:56 -0700
      Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 16:18 -0700
        Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 07:46 -0500
          Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-20 07:23 -0700
        Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 07:50 -0500
      Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-07-19 23:50 +0000
        Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-19 17:06 -0700
  Re: Scientific America propaganda on General Relativity. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2015-07-20 07:13 -0700

csiph-web