Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?

On Mar 12, 10:33 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 12, 6:12 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:

On Mar 11, 11:32 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can you find a reason to exclude

&x / &x' = sqrt(-1)

as a legit transformation coefficient?

I'm sure that it's possible to work perfectly well with
complex coordinates.

That's what a (+---) signature is.

NO, IT ISN'T! That is not, in any way, what it represents.

You *still* cannot explain to me, in your own words, what a metric
signature means.


But the notion of a metric "signature"
only makes sense if the coordinates are real.

I don't know what "makes sense" means, but
I prefer to use a (++++) signature BUT that's
choice not a physical law of nature.

Uh, ++++ is Euclidean. On the other hand, you don't understand the
meaning of a metric signature so you feel free to make it mean
whatever you want.

Ken S. Tucker

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

.

Relevant Pages