On Feb 27, 8:37*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
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

xxein: That you know of...

On Feb 27, 5:37 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
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

If you want your boundary condition to
be g11 = -1 , fine, then you're entitled
to by setting the scalar product of the
unit vectors as, g11 = u1.u1 = -1
(use "" as vector notation),
with magnitude |u1| = sqrt(-1), and
|u4|=1 to get g44=+1.

I don't give a flying **** what you do,
it's your decision, do what you want,
that's General Covariance talking.

OTOH, don't try bullying the ISU when
L=cT is entrenched in 1983 and is fine
with us, giving, unit vector magnitudes
|u1| = meter == (|u4| = second) .
That's our decision.

The genuis's all got together 25 years
ago and agreed,
c = 299 792 458 meters / second.

so now c*second = 299 792 458 meters.

There are no negative numbers in that,
so working Modern SpaceTime, it's
ok that |u4| = |u1|, rendering
the boundary g44=g11 and the so-called
signature (++++).

Our modest website ref demo's how that
decision is in accord with physics,
including
-Quantum Theory,
-Mass definition,
-Unified Field Theory.

But the theory, as all theories, are
subject to experimental results. In
that case both LIGO and GP-b results,
will be important measurements for
the future of GR, as we know it.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Feb 27, 4:04 pm, xxein wrote:
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.

Hi xxein
Thats surprising,I figured you might not be sure about what to say but
a clear opinion of wrong is interesting.If its wrong I will need to
either remove the theory from my site or revise it at some level of
very speculative.Forgive me for being skeptical I just got done
arguing with another poster that turned out to think, or at least
claim that hydrogen had antigravity properties.After I found this out
I did not worry much anymore about his opinions on my theories.
As I really don't know you or how much you do know about this subject
so I do at least have to ask if you do know what gravitational time
dilation is and if you also know how it works.Shapiro effect, etc
otherwise you wont get the basis of the theory at all.I did a look at
your profile but didn't find much for me to be able to tell much about
you except for one posting made me wonder.
Where did you decide it was wrong.Is it where I use the polvalt in
barn Gedanken with the time dilation inside.It could be because you
are looking at the rods prospective as I did not go into exploring
those types of questions on the site as it would have taken too much
print but it did not appear to refute the theory.
Dale

On Feb 27, 5:48 pm, xxein wrote:
On Feb 27, 8:37 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:



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

xxein: That you know of...

xxein
Read your essay/post (twice) a few days back,
very nice.

Maybe we should start a war between those
who use Polar CS's and those who use Cartesian
CS's, it's ****ing religious ****.

Next we'll start a war between those using
(+---) against those using (-+++), that has
been going for a century.

Lot's of crazies in this world.
Regards
Ken

On Feb 28, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:48 pm, xxein wrote:



On Feb 27, 8:37 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

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

xxein: That you know of...

xxein
Read your essay/post (twice) a few days back,
very nice.

Maybe we should start a war between those
who use Polar CS's and those who use Cartesian
CS's, it's ****ing religious ****.

Next we'll start a war between those using
(+---) against those using (-+++), that has
been going for a century.

Its' a choice, Ken. Stop kooking out over the irrelevant.


Lot's of crazies in this world.
Regards
Ken

On Feb 28, 5:02*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:48 wrote:





On Feb 27, 8:37 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

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

xxein: *That you know of...

xxein
Read your essay/post (twice) a few days back,
very nice.

Maybe we should start a war between those
who use Polar CS's and those who use Cartesian
CS's, it's ****ing religious ****.

Next we'll start a war between those using
(+---) against those using (-+++), that has
been going for a century.

Lot's of crazies in this world.
Regards
Ken- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Thanks. But I wonder if it changed your perspective. There
was so much that I wanted to add as a post to myself (and never did)
that is equally food for logical thought and equally tantalising.

And now in this thread, there are discussions about what a math
means. 'Yes, it's real', 'No, it isn't' or 'No, yours isn't' and mine
is. This addiction to math is getting way away from a physical
logic. I keep repeating that there is a subjective 'physics' and an
'objective' physics and that Einstein's method is subjective. And
then there is 'do the math' or 'read this chapter'. It means nothing
beyond its own belief.

Granted that I may never be the wisest sage, but in this matter, I
can't find one at all.

I've had my four+ years of university study (whatever that is supposed
to mean) and aside from the certain enlightenments, it was always
outmoded. Even the classic prose is continually second-guessed.

But that's OK because we were never sure to start with. Science is no
different. We continually change theory.

Math, otoh, seemed to be of another breed. It seemed pure, and that
as a tool, we could only reinforce it. Well? I hope you are learning
differently. It is driven by the concept that it applies to. While
there is still a 'pure' math, it is just like 'fairy dust'. Without
an application it is 'ethereal'. It has a structure, but not one that
is applicable without the concept of a 'sounding board'. Outside of
itself, it only applies to the conception we use it for.

1 planet + 1 planet = 2 planets. Who could argue against this? It is
math. But in the physical realm, what does it mean? So we give them
motion and gravity. But there are other objects and forces. They
come both big and small. Gravity is both big and small. What is the
driving concept? It is certainly not math.

This is where a mathematical 'proof' fails in physics. We can 'bend'
the math to a concept. Math can remain pure in itself, but its
application can't. This is like saying the matrix is false if the
vectors are not of proscribed basis. The vectors are false if they do
not represent a certain concept. We hardly know whether a vector is
subjective or objective in its observation. My money says it is
merely subjective.

But we can be objectively oriented sometimes. The dividing line is
rather obscure, though. But why should there be such a dividing line
in the first place? Why should a math be able to configure to these
different forms of concept unless math is corrupted by these forms?

So let's say "yea" to math as long as it is not applied to anything
but itself.

I hope you understand.
And thanks, again.

On Feb 26, 1:45*am, 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 with elements a, b, c,
and d. *As you have already agreed that a, b, c, and d can be observer
dependent.

I have? Oh... I suppose you mean that a,b,c,d are the components of a
tensor.

[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,

I did? You just said that I agreed that the components were "observer
dependent". Perhaps that's what you meant.

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?

By "observer dependent" we mean "coordinate system dependent" or
"basis dependent". If I factor out a non-zero number then implicitly
I'm changing the units. The numeric values of the elements of a
tensor are dependent on the choice of units as well as on the
orientation of the basis vectors.

So where is the problem?

You need to resolve this mathematical conflict of yours in order for
us to continue our discussions.

That's OK. I'll leave it be.

I recall your handle from a few years ago, at which time I formed some
spot model something like "grad student posting under a funny name,
semi-serious". I see that at least now I must at least revise my
estimation of either your skill or your intent: you either know and
understand even less than even I do, which is not a very high upper
bound, and are arrogant about it, or your intent is to laugh at the
stupidity of people who try to reason with you, or you are
impersonating the original holder of that handle on gmail, or any
combination of these conditions.

The rest of crap is snipped mercifully.

Thanks for the kind words. Likewise, I'm sure.

On Feb 28, 8:03 pm, Edward Green wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:45 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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.

I have? Oh... I suppose you mean that a,b,c,d are the components of a
tensor.

Yes.

[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,

I did? You just said that I agreed that the components were "observer
dependent". Perhaps that's what you meant.

Yes.

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?

By "observer dependent" we mean "coordinate system dependent" or
"basis dependent". If I factor out a non-zero number then implicitly
I'm changing the units. The numeric values of the elements of a
tensor are dependent on the choice of units as well as on the
orientation of the basis vectors.

So where is the problem?

The problem is that you are still stuck in your matheMagic realm where
you can turn an ordinary matrix into a tensor by saying
'abracadabra'. shrug

You need to resolve this mathematical conflict of yours in order for
us to continue our discussions.

That's OK. I'll leave it be.

Thank you.

I recall your handle from a few years ago, at which time I formed some
spot model something like "grad student posting under a funny name,
semi-serious". I see that at least now I must at least revise my
estimation of either your skill or your intent: you either know and
understand even less than even I do, which is not a very high upper
bound, and are arrogant about it, or your intent is to laugh at the
stupidity of people who try to reason with you, or you are
impersonating the original holder of that handle on gmail, or any
combination of these conditions.

What handle is that? Do you know me?

The rest of crap is snipped mercifully.

Thanks for the kind words.

You are very welcome.

Likewise, I'm sure.

Where?

On Feb 28, 6:58 pm, xxein wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Feb 27, 5:48 wrote:

On Feb 27, 8:37 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

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

xxein: That you know of...

xxein
Read your essay/post (twice) a few days back,
very nice.

Maybe we should start a war between those
who use Polar CS's and those who use Cartesian
CS's, it's ****ing religious ****.

Next we'll start a war between those using
(+---) against those using (-+++), that has
been going for a century.

Lot's of crazies in this world.
Regards
Ken- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Thanks. But I wonder if it changed your perspective. There
was so much that I wanted to add as a post to myself (and never did)
that is equally food for logical thought and equally tantalising.

And now in this thread, there are discussions about what a math
means. 'Yes, it's real', 'No, it isn't' or 'No, yours isn't' and mine
is. This addiction to math is getting way away from a physical
logic. I keep repeating that there is a subjective 'physics' and an
'objective' physics and that Einstein's method is subjective. And
then there is 'do the math' or 'read this chapter'. It means nothing
beyond its own belief.

Granted that I may never be the wisest sage, but in this matter, I
can't find one at all.

I've had my four+ years of university study (whatever that is supposed
to mean) and aside from the certain enlightenments, it was always
outmoded. Even the classic prose is continually second-guessed.

But that's OK because we were never sure to start with. Science is no
different. We continually change theory.

Math, otoh, seemed to be of another breed. It seemed pure, and that
as a tool, we could only reinforce it. Well? I hope you are learning
differently.

I've learned that ill defined variables
are a PITA in mathematical physics.
In math it's so easy, but inter-relating
variables to physics is 80% of the problem.

It is driven by the concept that it applies to. While
there is still a 'pure' math, it is just like 'fairy dust'. Without
an application it is 'ethereal'. It has a structure, but not one that
is applicable without the concept of a 'sounding board'. Outside of
itself, it only applies to the conception we use it for.

1 planet + 1 planet = 2 planets. Who could argue against this?

Yup, 1 apple + 1 orange = 2 fruits.

It is
math. But in the physical realm, what does it mean? So we give them
motion and gravity. But there are other objects and forces. They
come both big and small. Gravity is both big and small. What is the
driving concept? It is certainly not math.

This is where a mathematical 'proof' fails in physics. We can 'bend'
the math to a concept. Math can remain pure in itself, but its
application can't. This is like saying the matrix is false if the
vectors are not of proscribed basis. The vectors are false if they do
not represent a certain concept. We hardly know whether a vector is
subjective or objective in its observation. My money says it is
merely subjective.

Yeah, standing on a weigh scale is
a suppose force vector pointe at earth.

But we can be objectively oriented sometimes. The dividing line is
rather obscure, though. But why should there be such a dividing line
in the first place? Why should a math be able to configure to these
different forms of concept unless math is corrupted by these forms?

As a brat, I was navigator for cross-
country trips, keeping an eye on the
MPH, and the map I'd predict ETA's.
My ETA's were "corrupted" by slow drivers
that the OLD BOY couldn't pass.

So let's say "yea" to math as long as it is not applied to anything
but itself.

I'm not sure that's an option in our
world where the "bean counters" find
the most efficient way of doing things,
when building Pyramids.

I hope you understand.
And thanks, again.

Welcome and thanks back.
I think you lean somewhat pessimistic,
but your points are well taken.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Feb 28, 11:20 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[snip]

The problem is that you are still stuck in your matheMagic realm where
you can turn an ordinary matrix into a tensor by saying
'abracadabra'. shrug

In other words, you do not understand.

[snip]