Re: GR1916, available online.

On Dec 10, 10:44 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Koobee Wublee wrote:

With the statement I made above, how can I possibly have failed
differential geometry? You just do not understand the basics.
<shrug>

"..the field equations are not tensor equations..." - Amazingly wrong.
"The metric cannot be a tensor." - Incredibly wrong.
"This is because to describe the geometry, you must establish a
coordinate system..." - True but irrelevant.
"There is only one and only one unique metric that can possibly
describe the geometry using this already established choice of
coordinate system." - Very wrong.
"To get to the field equations, this set of coordinate system is
already cast in concrete." - Also very wrong.

You are the one who needs to go back and study the very basics first.

Hmm. Do you not remember that you have no college degree? Do you not
know that if I take away all your textbooks, you are no smarter than
an amoeba?

As a troll, you naturally have no ability to understand what I am
talking about even after I have explained very carefully and
thoroughly what I have meant. <shrug>

When asked for references, you waffle and change the subject.

My post is my own reference. <shrug>

When asked for proof, you ignore the request, insult the person who
requested it, run away from the thread, or all three.

I have given the proof. Since you do not understand it, at least
admit it instead of throwing sh*t around.

When presented with a proof that disproves your idiocy, you ignore the
proof, insult the person who did the proof, run away from the thread,
or all three.

What proof? Not only you are ignorant, you are also very delusional.
<shrug>

Yes, I do not bluff. I have always claimed the only way to derive the
field equations is through the BS that Hilbert came up with. You are
just a troll not to have understood what I have been saying. <shrug>

Why are you crying about the same procedure that is used in classical
mechanics?

What crying? Please do not confuse your own whining with my sound and
logical arguments. <shrug>

A Lagrangian is assumed, and the physics evolves from
there.

According to the calculus of variations, you can never assume a
Lagrangian. You must justify the Lagrangian you are using satisfy all
the constraints imposed by the calculus of variations. <shrug>

Oh that's right - you never studied classical mechanics. My bad.

Keep guessing. They are all wrong so far. <shrug>

See the paragraph of my remarks above. You are a troll. The records
to prove you are a liar are in my past posts. Again, I have always
claimed the only one to derive the field equations is through the
nonsense that Hilbert had come up with. <shrug>

It's a pretty good troll because you always fall for it.

I told you many times that I am no good bluffer, and I am no troll. I
do present my arguments soundly and logically. It is a trait that is
missing from the likes of you. <shrug>

Have you not been reading Professor Robert's posts? In the following
very recent post, he clearly has indicated that the field equations do
not derive the geodesic equations directly after correcting his
mistake posting to me about a year to two years ago.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a43b05bdf66...

Awww, that's so CUTE! You don't know the difference between the
geodesic equation and the field equations!

What gives you that idea?

You don't even know how either are derived!

Apparently, you have not read and understood my posts. <shrug>

Well, the proper time is defined as the spacetime divided by the speed
of light mathematically. Just how much can you be a rebel and
challenge that fact? It is all in the very simple mathematics. I am
certain you are very inept at doing any simple math.

Do the integral. C'mon.

You spend hours writing words to me. What's 5 minutes of calculus?

Well, the proper time is still defined as the spacetime divided by the
speed of light mathematically.

Here you go again. The proper time is now imaginary. You are a troll
as well as being the silliest clown.

Nope. Proper time isn't imaginary.

You do not understand complex numbers. Your errors have been pointed
out by several other posters not just me. <shrug>

Your inability to understand is linked why this is so is also closely
to your inability to understand why proper time is a poor
parameterization for null paths.

Just what creative thinking do you need to understand the proper time
as merely the spacetime divided by the speed of light?

You are still delusional. It is still time for you to check yourself
into a mental hospital before you do more damage to the cause of
science.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are There Unresolver Foundational Issues With GR
    ... elements of the metric are independent of O. <shrug> ... coordinate WAS ALREADY decided when the field equations WERE ... The metric _IS_ the geometry. ... These equations yield an infinite numbers of solutions (metrics) using ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are There Unresolver Foundational Issues With GR
    ... Don't blame me on your failure in mathematics. ... student Levi-Civita from the Riemann curvature tensor. ... there is only one solid way to derive the field equations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR1916, available online.
    ... describe the geometry, you must establish a coordinate system in the ... I do not count on a troll to change its opinion, ... his *ss is the only way of deriving the field equations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR1916, available online.
    ... You continue to forget that the field equations are /tensor/ equations ... The individual metric components are treated as ... understand what an affine parameter is, or why proper time is a poor ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR1916, available online.
    ... "To get to the field equations, this set of coordinate system is ... the constraints imposed by the calculus of variations. ... the proper time is still defined as the spacetime divided by the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast