Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:42:21 GMT
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
when I suggested General
Covariance enables a signature choice,
to unchain the brains, I got yelled at.
In pseudo-Reiemannian geometry one must ALWAYS select a sign convention that fixes the signature of the metric (actually this is also true in Riemannian geometry, but nobody picks a signature of --- so the issue never arises in practice).
You got "yelled at" for getting the signature wrong, not for making a choice of signature. <shrug>
It's a psychosis, some people want to
remain chained up and imprisoned so I
figure to allow that, it's a choice.
It is noeither a "choice" nor a "chain" to follow the mathematics. But that something neither you nor Koobee bother about. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- 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: Koobee Wublee
- Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- Prev by Date: Re: Equivalence Principle Violated in Radiation?
- Next by Date: Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- 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
|
