Re: GR1916 question about g=1?
- From: Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:51:44 -0900
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:48:31 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
<dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:19 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
On page 180, equation 47 shows exactly what the Ricci tensor is
reduced to with the determinant of g being -1.
LOL, what happens in Eq.(44) to the S_uv if we
permit "g" to be positive and a function of
velocity, such as g = +(1-v^2) ?
What "happens" is that the person who made such a statement is
revealed to be a collosal idiot who doesn't understand that the metric
tensor is a symmetric object containing the ten direction cosines of
that particular coordinate basis which cannot be a function of
velocity.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GR1916 question about g=1?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: GR1916 question about g=1?
- References:
- Re: GR1916 question about g=1?
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: GR1916 question about g=1?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: GR1916 question about g=1?
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: GR1916 question about g=1?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: GR1916 question about g=1?
- Prev by Date: Re: Does propagation delay give rise to time dialation?
- Next by Date: At Last! MI-5 Persecution has discovered sci.physics.relativity
- Previous by thread: Re: GR1916 question about g=1?
- Next by thread: Re: GR1916 question about g=1?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
