Re: Lagrange in GR ?
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 3 Oct 2006 10:06:46 -0700
Koobee Wublee says...
Daryl McCullough wrote:
Koobee Wublee says...
There only two possible mechanism for geodesics. Both are postulates.
However, only one of them can be correct. Excuse me, Dr. Roberts. I
meant "valid".
1) A geodesic path follows the one with the maximum amount of
accumulated spacetime.
The correct statement is this: A geodesic is a path that maximizes
proper time.
Since proper time is the same as spacetime divided by the speed of
light
Spacetime is not a quantity. You can't add it, or divide by it.
Spacetime is a manifold.
I think perhaps you mean "spacetime separation"?
You don't seem to pay attention to what you are saying. You
mouth the words "minimum amount of accumulated time", but you
don't think about what those words actually mean. Suppose
a geodesic path takes an object from the top of a building
to the ground in 5 seconds. Is that the "minimum amount of
accumulated time"? No, because it is possible to get a rock
from the top of the building to the bottom in 4 seconds,
or 3 seconds, or 2 seconds. There *is* no minimum amount
of accumulated time.
You are still clueless. <shrug>
If I'm clueless as to what you mean by "minimum amount of
accumulated time", it's because you haven't explained what
the heck you mean by that. It is increasingly clear that
the reason you haven't explained it is because you have no
idea what you mean by it. You are spouting phrases that you
have no understanding of.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- References:
- Re: Lagrange in GR ?
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Lagrange in GR ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Michelson-Morley: Much ado about nil
- Next by Date: Re: Michelson-Morley: Much ado about nil
- Previous by thread: Re: Lagrange in GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: Lagrange in GR ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
