Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:52:09 -0800 (PST)
On Mar 7, 1:09 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I dislike replying to Gisse,
my Gerbil knows more physics.
Anyway here goes..........
On Mar 7, 1:47 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:25 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:43 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
947bfea7-24d3-46b7-87d5-d71dbbd02...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Igor, I like your posts but I think
you are unnecessarily putting a chain
on your brain....
On Mar 7, 10:53 am, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:02 am, iuval <cle...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is there a theorem saying that if the metric starts out with a
negative signature on a spacelike surface (one or three eigenvalues
negative) that the field equations will preserve this negative
signature for all future and past?
What if there were 5 dimensions?
-Iuval
Think of it this way. If the signature were to vary from positive to
negative or vice versa, there must be an intermediate state having
signature zero. But that would be singular. So it's not allowed to
change.
Consider a 1D orthogonal axis.
Consider 1 hand clapping.
Dirk Vdm
The mathematicians advise only the
need for a "proper transformation",
such that the Jacobian matrix is
non-zero, hence enabling a "regular
transformation" to occur, allowing
imaginary coordinates.
(If anyone uses a ruler marked off
with unit distances of sqrt(-1),
that's ok with me, it's freedom).
Where spacetime is concerned, all
that is needed is too prove one can
derive,
ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dr^2
as in Eq,(12) here,http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
Everything your paper is wrong. Stop citing it.
The "paper" nulls g14 in the ds^2,
which means the Kerr metric does not
apply and "frame fragging" is nulled.
The paper is wrong in both basic application of general relativity and
basic understanding of electromagnetic theory. The position is
indefensible, yet you try anyway.
IFF OTOH, "frame dragging" is confirmed
by repeatable experiment, I'll retire and
encourage developement of nonsymmetrical
metrics, propagated via the Guv,conveying
spin, via g-fields.
Gravity Probe B and the LAGEOS & LAGEOS II satellite missions have
observed frame dragging.
that uses a (++++) signature, as spec'd by
the ISU.
ISU says no such thing.
The ISU is clear on this, what you do
is your choice, You can think and do as
you please.
Really? Show us where the ISU makes ANY claim regarding the metric
signature in any context.
From that you can easily transform to any CS
that is suitable to the particular need.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Spirit of Truth
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- References:
- invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: iuval
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Igor
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- Prev by Date: Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- Next by Date: Re: The speed of gravity revisited
- Previous by thread: Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- Next by thread: Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|