|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Riemannian geometry etc.
On Apr 10, 8:22 am, shuba wrote:
Ah, I see. So Riemann, Gauss, and the thousands of others who have rigorously developed and studied the field are failures, and an unknown relativity crank on usenet is the lone genius who has the record straight. Very plausible. No, not all of them. Perhaps the following Relativity play will shed so light on your confusion. Newton: I came up with the laws of gravity to describe what gravity does by observing a falling apple under the influence of gravitation. Einstein: I have no idea of what I am doing, but I can tell you that I personally have derived the so-called Lorentz transform through two assumptions which I have proudly speculated. The first speculation is the principle of relativity, and the second one is the constancy in the speed of light. Galileo: Excuse me. I have already discovered the principle of relativity. Voigt: Excuse me as well. I have already suggested the necessary mechanism to explain the null results of the MMX as the constancy in the observed speed of light regardless if the principle of relativity holds or not. That is how I derived the Voigt transformation. This transformation does not satisfy the principle of relativity but explains the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment through the constancy in the speed of light. Larmor: Well, the Voigt transformation is certainly not the only one that explains these null results. I have discovered another one by dividing one side of the Voigt transformation by the square root quantity. It also does not satisfy the principle of relativity in general. Just like the Voigt transformation, one of the two observers must be the absolute frame of reference. All observations must reference back to this absolute frame of reference. Galileo: What good are the Voigt and the Lorentz transformations when neither satisfies the principle of relativity? Mind you that the Galilean transformation allows the two observers to be anyone. All observations are relative. Maxwell: There is no scientific axiom that requires the principle of relativity to hold. In fact, Maxwell’s equations explain the propagation of light without the principle of relativity. The absolute frame of reference must exist to allow for the propagation of light. Lorentz: While Mr. Maxwell was explaining it is unnecessary for the validity of the principle of relativity, I have come across an infinite such transformations on top of what Mr. Voigt and Mr. Larmor have discovered. They all satisfy the null results of the Michelson- Morley experiment but not the principle of relativity. Maxwell: Good point, Mr. Lorentz, Mr. Larmor, and Mr. Voigt. These null results actually prove the existence of the Aether. Michell: Hold it, gentlemen. The ballistic theory of light explains these null results and satisfies the principle of relativity. Einstein: Hooray! My speculation which is based on farce can turn out to be correct after all, and it is all mine. Galileo: whispering to Newton After stealing two of my discoveries, this idiot does not realize his second speculation fails the ballistic theory of light. Newton: Although I am the founding father describing light as classical particles, I have to disagree with Mr. Michell. The ballistic theory of light cannot explain light propagation and electromagnetic phenomena. Poinca Then among all these infinite numbers of transformations that Mr. Lorentz discovered, which one is valid? Poinca Wait, gentlemen. With the way Mr. Larmor wrote down his transformation, the absolute frame of reference vanishes for this special case. Michelson: Yes, Mr. Poincare. This is a special case where both observers are moving in parallel relative to the absolute frame of reference. Poinca Nevertheless, we can *******ize Mr. Larmor’s transformation into a new one where the two observers can be anyone just like the Galilean transformation. In this case, the principle of relativity is preserved. Let’s now call Mr. Larmor’s transformation the Lorentz transformation. Michelson: That is foul. The Lorentz transformation reflects no experimental bases. It is created in the minds of man. We deal with physics. We don’t play God, OK? Einstein: Shut up, Mr. Michelson. You don’t understand relativity. My groundless speculations have finally paid off. I will now attempt to fudge the Lorentz transformation into the Maxwell’s equations. Maxwell: Where did they get this clown from? shaking his head Einstein: Well then, I have personally discovered spacetime. Minkowski: Wait! I am the one who wrote down all the equations of the Lorentz transform into a single, concise one. Spacetime then only becomes very obvious from then on. Voigt: The Voigt transformation can be written into a single, concise equation as well. Larmor: So is the transformation I have discovered and the infinite others that Mr. Lorentz have discovered. H. G. Wells: Well, Mr. Einstein, I don’t know if you have read my book “The Time Machine”. In it, I have already described time and space forming a single entity in which a time traveler can travel from one set of time and space to another. Einstein: OK, let’s forget about Special Relativity and talk about General Relativity. I personally discovered the principle of equivalence by picturing myself as that falling apple trapped in the gravitational field. Newton: That is very stupid. Gravity can only be characterized by observing how an object would behave under the influence of gravitation not through how you experience it. Galileo: Not only that, I had already discovered the principle of equivalence. Einstein: Well, my discovery of the equivalence principle actually came after I have finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity. Newton: whispering to Galileo You are correct. This guy is an idiot! Einstein: I am the one who first suggested gravity as a curvature in spacetime. Riemann: I have already suggested that gravity is caused by curved space. But since the mathematical concept of time and space forming into a single set of coordinate was not yet discovered, I went nowhere. Hilbert: That is correct. Space can curve as much as it likes, but as long as there is no curvature in the temporal dimension or gravitational time dilation, there is no gravity. Einstein: Never mind the curvature of spacetime, then. I personally have derived the field equations and beat Mr. Hilbert to it. Grossmann: Mr. Einstein, you know nothing about mathematics. There is no way in hell you can come up with the field equations without a massive amount of help --- helps like what I gave you without a single ounce of gratitude while we, more like I alone, were developing the “entwurf” to explain the laws of gravity through rigorous coordinate transformations. Einstein: Well, you failed, Mr. Grossmann. shrug Christoffel: Before Mr. Einstein claim more credits, I was the one who came up with the Christoffel symbols. Ricci: Yes, all thanks to Mr. Christoffel, I was able to invent something called the covariant derivative. Then, by taking the double covariant derivative of the spatial distance between two points in either space or spacetime, I was able to invent a 4-dimensional matrix now called the Riemann curvature tensor. In space, it is a 3x3x3x3 matrix with 81 elements; in spacetime, it is a 4x4x4x4 matrix with 256 elements. Riemann: I just want to clarify this. Although I was the first to mathematically describe what the curvature of space is, the Riemann tensor and Riemannian geometry have nothing to do with me. Grossmann: Mr. Christoffel, besides the way you have grouped the connection coefficients in which now are called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind, there is another anti-symmetric arrangement, and this other arrangement of the connection coefficients would result in a different Riemann curvature tensor through a different covariant derivative defined by Mr. Ricci. Ricci: Ooops. There is another possible covariant derivative different from what I have invented. Hey, nobody is perfect. shrug Levi-Civita: But who cares? As long as the metric is diagonal, they are the same. For no apparent reasons, I was able to reduce the 4- dimensional Riemann tensor into a 2-dimensional matrix which is now called the Ricci tensor. Koobee Wublee: You guys are just playing in the sand box. On top of these two covariant derivatives that yield two different Riemann tensors, there are four ways to arrange the connection coefficients in the results to the double operations in covariant derivative. Mr. Ricci’s Riemann tensor is only one such possibilities even if the metric is symmetric. shrug Nordstrom: I agree with Mr. Levi-Civita. As long as we are only discussing the diagonal metric, all these tensors should be identical. So, I suggest that the null Ricci tensor would fully describe gravitation. Newton: clearing his throat Hilbert: Well, it certainly would work in vacuum, thus the Laplace equation. However, it does not explain the more general Poisson equation. I have a better idea. I will throw in the square root of the negative of the determinant to the metric into the Ricci scalar. Demanding the action resulted from this Lagrangian to be stationary, the result would be the set of field equations. Einstein: No, the field equations are derived by me only. Minkowski: Shut up, Albert. Remember that you were my worst student. Yeah, instead of studying physics, you were thinking with your dick and chasing after the only skirt in that class. Weber: Oh, in my class of electromagnetism, Albert was drawing woman’s blouse in his notes. I am deeply insulted by that. Einstein: Hey, I had an idea about woman’s blouse. I even had a patent on one. Minkowski: I have a question for David. Why is the stationary condition to this action necessary? How did you pin the significance of the square root of the determinant to the matric to your Lagrangian? Hilbert: I don't know that myself. I fudged it through desperation after Mr. Einstein told me that he had already derived the perihelion advance of Mercury. Einstein: What I had done had nothing to do with the field equations. I was just using the same method as Mr. Gerber did by modifying the Newtonian gravitational potential except that I modified it differently. Gerber: Yes, I merely modified the Newtonian gravitational potential with speed dependent terms. Hilbert: I did not know that. I should have known better. shrug Newton: I could not believe that was how you clowns did physics in the early twentieth centuries. Klein: You have to excuse us, Mr. Newton. We were completely baffled by the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Schwarzschild: Since the field equations are derived whether they are valid or not, having a metric with a determinant of -1 would result in drastically simplified field equations and thus the Ricci tensor. In doing so, I have transformed the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate into one that would yield -1 to the determinant of its metric. Thus, trivially, I have discovered the very first solution to the field equations that is static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat. Hilbert: That is great, Karl. Here is another such solution which is now named after you as the Schwarzschild metric. Since there are an infinite such solutions to the field equations, what I have done must be total nonsense. I regret getting involved such deeply in this fiasco. Einstein: Great! Now, I can claim sole proprietorship to the field equations. Self-styled physicists: Wow, folks. Do you see the Schwarzschild metric manifests black holes? We could get a lot of attention and grant money to perpetuate our welfare by elaborating on these heavenly objects created through mathemagical nonsense that we do not even understand ourselves. Schwarzschild: But my original metric does not manifest black holes, and so are other infinite solutions to the field equations. Self-styled physicists: Who cares about how the math shows. Since the metric fully describe the geometry regardless any coordinate system. All solutions to the field equations must be the same. shrug Riemann: That is not what I have described of curved space. You guys are just a whole bunch of clowns. The concept that the metric is the geometry is fatally flawed. The mathematical description of the thing called the metric alone cannot possibly be enough to describe the invariant geometry. You need to specify the choice of coordinate system as well. Each set of coordinate system would require another unique metric to describe the same, invariant geometry. Hilbert: applaud Grade school children: Even, we can all understand what Mr. Riemann is talking about. College dropouts: Come on. The self-styled physicists have PhDs. Although we cannot think for ourselves, we believe in the self-styled physicists. Whatever they say must be correct despite we don't know what they are saying. Grade school children: But that is all wrong, we can still think for ourselves without any poison from Einsteinian mysticism. Einstein: While you guys are arguing about something I have no understanding of, I have discovered the Cosmological constant. By adding the Cosmological constant to the field equations, I can halt the gravitational collapse. Poisson: Yeah, I thought about the negative mass density in vacuum too but dismissed it as stupidity of the utmost degree. Newton: I have to agree with Mr. Poisson here. Self-styled physicists: But the Cosmological constant deals with energy not mass. So, you have negative energy, and that is OK we think. shrug Einstein: Being no good at all in mathematics, even I see the stupidity in the Cosmological constant since (E = m c^2). My God, it was the biggest blunder in my life. I am indeed a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug Michelson: Mr. Einstein, the Cosmological constant is the only blunder in your life. shrug Self-styled physicists: Even if Mr. Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, we would continue to worship him. We love these groundless speculations. We are still bedazzled by how he can start with two equations equating zero with zero and pull out the Lorentz transformation from these. Einsteinian mysticism must continue, and Voodoo mathematics rules. College dropout: Goody! Now we can have empty space that expands itself, branes, multiverse, wormholes, black holes, budding universes, etc. Orwell: I told you so. ** FAITH IS THEORY ** LYING IS TEACHING ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** BULL**** IS TRUTH ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS Self-styled physicists: Never mind Mr. Orwell. In the meantime, the GPS represent the most triumphant prediction of General Relativity. In order to allow the GPS to function, the satellite time must be in total synchronization with the ground. That means the clocks on board the satellite must tick a tiny bit slower to allow the slower ground clocks to keep up. Engineers: Gee! This is a myth perpetrated by the self-styled physicists to promote the nonsense of General Relativity. It is not the clock that has to be synchronized. The only requirement for the GPS is to synchronize the chronological time among the satellites even if the clocks on board the satellites are different, and even if the ground clock or the ground chronological time is different. However, it is must easier to synchronize the satellite clocks to achieve universal synchronization of satellite chronological time. College dropouts: Although we don’t understand all that, we have to believe in the arm-chair designers of the GPS, namely the self-styled physicists. Engineers: Hey, look, punks. Any GPS receiver is receiving almanac information from the satellites at a slow pacing rate of 50 bits per second. The almanac information contains the position and the chronological time (relative to all the satellites) of one satellite. It takes several seconds to complete one record of information. With an acquisition of four satellites, the GPS receiver can build a set of four equations with the known positions and chronological times of the satellites and the unknown position and the unknown chronological time (relative to the satellites) of the receiver itself. With these 4 independent equations, all you have to do is to solve for these 4 unknowns. The chronological time of the ground does not come into play in determining a person’s position. However, we do provide an accurate universal time using the good old technique of “at the time of the beep, the time will be blah blah blah”, and this should not be extorted to promote the nonsense of General Relativity. Einstein: Well, I don’t really understand any engineering applications, but anyhow now I am worshipped as a god which not bad for being a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Creativity is to know how to hide your sources, and it pays off. wink |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Orbital geometry | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 17 | August 8th 10 06:06 AM |
Non Euclidean Geometry | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 7 | October 29th 08 06:39 PM |
Geometry | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 2 | October 27th 07 07:12 AM |
No GR bump or tic, in geometry. | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 24th 06 02:31 PM |
Geometry in the sky | Johan | Astronomy Misc | 14 | September 30th 04 09:28 AM |