On Feb 25, 9:39 am, Edward Green wrote:
On Feb 25, 12:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Did you not have claimed the following?

"The _components_ of the tensor may be observer dependent, but the
abstract tensor itself is independent of any coordinate system."

Yes I did. But in context, that hardly seems like an extraordinary
claim; it's a quite ordinary claim.

For example, I have the following simple matrix with elements a, b, c,
and d. As you have already agreed that a, b, c, and d can be observer
dependent.

[a, b]
[c, d]

Now, if I factor out any non-zero element (say a), the above matrix
becomes the following.

a [1, b / a]
[c / a, d / a]

If the original matrix as you have claimed can be observer
independent, then how can you justify the second matrix with elements
1, (b / a), (c / a), and (d / a) to be observer dependent since the
factor a is observer dependent as well?

You need to resolve this mathematical conflict of yours in order for
us to continue our discussions. The rest of crap is snipped
mercifully.

On Feb 16, 7:34 pm, xxein wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:49 pm, Edward Green wrote:



Yet the Kerr solution supposedly entrains mass to move in the same
sense of rotation, which it could not do if the GR field only saw

Time for a new theory, huh? The fact is that present theories are
primarily for the purpose of utilization and manipulation. They were
offspring of coarser attempts and did not alter their dna to an
understanding of the physic, itself.

As you noticed, our theories simply do not address enough.

Hi xxein
I used to post here often with an alternative theory that you might
not have seen looking at the idea that if time dilation i.e. time
slowing due to gravity could contract matter, what would happen.
Well it led to a whole bunch of new ideas but what really sold me on
this new idea is that I could think up experiments to test and prove
the theory.You will note that I am not the best at math and
terminology but my understanding of how things actually work is quite
good.
I just started a few days ago putting up a new web site www.alttheories.com
to save me time re explaining how the theory works so take a look and
let me know what you think.
The theory has a lot more that I will need to add to the site as I
find time.

Dale

On Feb 25, 9:45 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 25, 9:39 am, Edward Green wrote:

On Feb 25, 12:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Did you not have claimed the following?

"The _components_ of the tensor may be observer dependent, but the
abstract tensor itself is independent of any coordinate system."

Yes I did. But in context, that hardly seems like an extraordinary
claim; it's a quite ordinary claim.

For example, I have the following simple matrix

[snip remaining]

TENSORS ARE NOT MATRICES.

On Feb 25, 11:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 25, 9:45 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:39 am, Edward Green wrote:

On Feb 25, 12:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Did you not have claimed the following?

"The _components_ of the tensor may be observer dependent, but the
abstract tensor itself is independent of any coordinate system."

Yes I did. But in context, that hardly seems like an extraordinary
claim; it's a quite ordinary claim.

For example, I have the following simple matrix

[snip remaining]

TENSORS ARE NOT MATRICES.

My tensors allow fractional indices.
A few years ago fractional exponents
was considered unusual, but today,
it's good stuff, like 4^(1/2) = 2.

Using these contravariant tensors,

X^u = x^(u+1)

solve X to x.

That should keep Gisse and the mammilian
off-spring engaged for a few generations.
(Cheap rodent control :-).
Ken

On Feb 25, 11:14 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Feb 25, 11:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Feb 25, 9:45 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:39 am, Edward Green wrote:

On Feb 25, 12:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Did you not have claimed the following?

"The _components_ of the tensor may be observer dependent, but the
abstract tensor itself is independent of any coordinate system."

Yes I did. But in context, that hardly seems like an extraordinary
claim; it's a quite ordinary claim.

For example, I have the following simple matrix

[snip remaining]

TENSORS ARE NOT MATRICES.

My tensors allow fractional indices.

Sure - why not. Have you figured out what a metric signature is yet?

A few years ago fractional exponents
was considered unusual, but today,
it's good stuff, like 4^(1/2) = 2.

Unless you are 300 years old or completely ignorant of modern
mathematics, fractional exponents are old news. Fractional calculus,
fractional dimensions, etc.


Using these contravariant tensors,

X^u = x^(u+1)

solve X to x.

That should keep Gisse and the mammilian
off-spring engaged for a few generations.
(Cheap rodent control :-).
Ken

On Feb 26, 2:40 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 25, 11:14 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Feb 25, 11:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:45 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:39 am, Edward Green wrote:

On Feb 25, 12:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Did you not have claimed the following?

"The _components_ of the tensor may be observer dependent, but the
abstract tensor itself is independent of any coordinate system."

Yes I did. But in context, that hardly seems like an extraordinary
claim; it's a quite ordinary claim.

For example, I have the following simple matrix

[snip remaining]

TENSORS ARE NOT MATRICES.

My tensors allow fractional indices.

Sure - why not. Have you figured out what a metric signature is yet?

A few years ago fractional exponents
was considered unusual, but today,
it's good stuff, like 4^(1/2) = 2.

Unless you are 300 years old or completely ignorant of modern
mathematics, fractional exponents are old news. Fractional calculus,
fractional dimensions, etc.



Using these contravariant tensors,

X^u = x^(u+1)

solve X to x.

That should keep Gisse and the mammilian
off-spring engaged for a few generations.
(Cheap rodent control :-).
Ken

Solve the problem Gisse, or resign.
Anyone who portent's to mathematical
expertise is confronted with that.
Bye Bye
Regrads
Ken

On Feb 26, 1:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:40 am, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Feb 25, 11:14 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Feb 25, 11:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:45 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:39 am, Edward Green wrote:

On Feb 25, 12:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Did you not have claimed the following?

"The _components_ of the tensor may be observer dependent, but the
abstract tensor itself is independent of any coordinate system."

Yes I did. But in context, that hardly seems like an extraordinary
claim; it's a quite ordinary claim.

For example, I have the following simple matrix

[snip remaining]

TENSORS ARE NOT MATRICES.

My tensors allow fractional indices.

Sure - why not. Have you figured out what a metric signature is yet?

A few years ago fractional exponents
was considered unusual, but today,
it's good stuff, like 4^(1/2) = 2.

Unless you are 300 years old or completely ignorant of modern
mathematics, fractional exponents are old news. Fractional calculus,
fractional dimensions, etc.

Using these contravariant tensors,

X^u = x^(u+1)

solve X to x.

That should keep Gisse and the mammilian
off-spring engaged for a few generations.
(Cheap rodent control :-).
Ken

Solve the problem Gisse, or resign.
Anyone who portent's to mathematical
expertise is confronted with that.
Bye Bye
Regrads
Ken

Your inane little problem has no solution, idiot. Do you know what a
metric signature is yet?

On Feb 26, 2:31*am, wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:34 wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:49 pm, Edward Green wrote:

Yet the Kerr solution supposedly entrains mass to move in the same
sense of rotation, which it could not do if the GR field only saw
Time for a new theory, huh? *The fact is that present theories are
primarily for the purpose of utilization and manipulation. *They were
offspring of coarser attempts and did not alter their dna to an
understanding of the physic, itself.

As you noticed, our theories simply do not address enough.

Hixxein
I used to post here often with an alternative theory that you might
not have seen looking at the idea that if time dilation i.e. time
slowing due to gravity could contract matter, what would happen.
Well it led to a whole bunch of new ideas but what really sold me on
this new idea is that I could think up experiments to test and prove
the theory.You will note that I am not the best at math and
terminology but my understanding of how things actually work is quite
good.
I just started a few days ago putting up a new web sitewww.alttheories.com
to save me time re explaining how the theory works so take a look and
let me know what you think.
The theory has a lot more that I will need to add to the site as I
find time.

Dale

xxein: Sorry. I'll be kind and just say that it has no hope of being
the reality.

On Feb 27, 8:44*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Feb 26, 4:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Feb 26, 1:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Feb 26, 2:40 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 25, 11:14 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Feb 25, 11:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:45 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:39 am, Edward Green wrote:

On Feb 25, 12:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Did you not have claimed the following?

"The _components_ of the tensor may be observer dependent, but the
abstract tensor itself is independent of any coordinate system."

Yes I did. *But in context, that hardly seems like an extraordinary
claim; it's a quite ordinary claim.

For example, I have the following simple matrix

[snip remaining]

TENSORS ARE NOT MATRICES.

My tensors allow fractional indices.

Sure - why not. Have you figured out what a metric signature is yet?

A few years ago fractional exponents
was considered unusual, but today,
it's good stuff, like 4^(1/2) = 2.

Unless you are 300 years old or completely ignorant of modern
mathematics, fractional exponents are old news. Fractional calculus,
fractional dimensions, etc.

Using these contravariant tensors,

X^u = x^(u+1)

solve X to x.

That should keep Gisse and the mammilian
off-spring engaged for a few generations.
(Cheap rodent control :-).
Ken

Solve the problem Gisse, or resign.
Anyone who portent's to mathematical
expertise is confronted with that.
Bye Bye
Regrads
Ken

Your inane little problem has no solution, idiot. Do you know what a
metric signature is yet?

That's tops in German efficiency, you've
answered and asked your own question.

The ISU has set the signature to (++++),http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
which I generally use because it's simple
and arbituary.
So far as I know, General Covariance permits
any signature you want. There are no physical
laws forcing a specific definition of the
signature.
Ken

Oh dear.

--
Jan Bielawski

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
The ISU has set the signature to (++++),

That's complete and utter nonsense. No standards organization can
possibly "set" something like that -- it inherently depends on the
manifold and metric in question. In SR and GR, the metric can have
signature +++- or ---+ (order doesn't matter); there is no observable
difference between those two choices (in SR and GR).


http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
which I generally use because it's simple
and arbituary.

Referencing yourself is just downright silly.


So far as I know, General Covariance permits
any signature you want.

Then you clearly do not know enough. For a given manifold with metric,
the signature is fixed, and no diffeomorphism or change of coordinates
can change it (that's the essence of general covariance).


There are no physical
laws forcing a specific definition of the
signature.

Again, you clearly do not know enough. For GR to be applied, one must
use a metric with one of the two signatures I mentioned above -- no
others come anywhere close to providing an accurate model of the world
we inhabit.


Tom Roberts