General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (296/396) > >>
aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 06, 2022, 07:47:55 am ---Those words were Feynman's.
--- End quote ---
This isn't what he said at all - or at least without citing page and reference I don't know what you're talking about. Feynman did write this,
--- Quote from: Feynman 13-6 ---Electric and magnetic forces are part of one physical phenomenon—the electromagnetic interactions of particles. The separation of this interaction into electric and magnetic parts depends very much on the reference frame chosen for the description. But a complete electromagnetic description is invariant; electricity and magnetism taken together are consistent with Einstein’s relativity.

Since electric and magnetic fields appear in different mixtures if we change our frame of reference, we must be careful about how we look at the fields E and B. For instance, if we think of “lines” of E or B, we must not attach too much reality to them. The lines may disappear if we try to observe them from a different coordinate system. For example, in system S′ there are electric field lines, which we do not find “moving past us with velocity v in system S.” In system S there are no electric field lines at all! Therefore it makes no sense to say something like: When I move a magnet, it takes its field with it, so the lines of B are also moved. There is no way to make sense, in general, out of the idea of “the speed of a moving field line.” The fields are our way of describing what goes on at a point in space. In particular, E and B tell us about the forces that will act on a moving particle. The question “What is the force on a charge from a moving magnetic field?” doesn’t mean anything precise. The force is given by the values of E and B at the charge, and the formula (13.1) is not to be altered if the source of E or B is moving (it is the values of E and B that will be altered by the motion). Our mathematical description deals only with the fields as a function of x, y, z, and t with respect to some inertial frame.

We will later be speaking of “a wave of electric and magnetic fields travelling through space,” as, for instance, a light wave. But that is like speaking of a wave travelling on a string. We don’t then mean that some part of the string is moving in the direction of the wave, we mean that the displacement of the string appears first at one place and later at another. Similarly, in an electromagnetic wave, the wave travels; but the magnitude of the fields change. So in the future when we—or someone else—speaks of a “moving” field, you should think of it as just a handy, short way of describing a changing field in some circumstances.
--- End quote ---
Emphasis mine. And what he's talking about there is an introduction to quantum field theory.
--- End quote ---
Here is what i said….
--- Quote ---I see that Feynman waves away the catastrophe by simply saying that a magnetic field can't move. Here he is agreeing that a magnetic field is static in the aether.
--- End quote ---
However, today i can't find those words in the two links that u gave for the two Feynman articles. So i withdraw my comment that Feynman said that a magnetic field can't move.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---
--- Quote ---There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.
--- End quote ---
Apparently you also flunked Newtonian mechanics. Understanding non-inertial reference frames is DEEPLY important to understanding how magnetism works in all the situations we may encounter it. There is an analogy between the Coriolis Effect and magnetism (see links below). Of course Special Relativity and General Relativity don't make sense to you - you don't get when the postulates of Special Relativity are applicable. By defining inertial frames, we also have to define non-inertial frames.

Why is the magnetic force similar to a Coriolis force?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.3624.pdf
Coriolis and Magnetic Forces: The Gyrocompass and Magnetic Compass as Analogues
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/21/068/21068614.pdf

Skipping the stuff where you just repeat nonsense about STR being rubbish...
--- End quote ---
 
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---
--- Quote ---The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).
--- End quote ---
You haven't actually proposed anything about what that 'solution' is. Again, pseudoscience.
I'm glad to know you have a solution that you don't know what it is or how to explain it.  :-DD
I know you're not learning anything but I hope whoever is reading this is.
--- End quote ---
The solution is so simple that u  missed it. The solution is that the magnetic field is fixed in the aether. When the magnetic disc spins it leaves its magnetic field behind.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---
--- Quote ---The Ehrenfest Paradox is interesting. I think that it deserves to be called a paradox, but the solution is simple. A spinning disc will suffer a shrinkage of the atoms & molecules along its circumference due to relativistic length contraction, whilst its radius is not much affected. Hence the disc can suffer radial cracks (which solves the paradox)(no GTR needed)(GTR solved a problem that did not exist). However, centrifugal forces would destroy a disc before the peripheral speed got to say c/50,000.
--- End quote ---
Oh... my... God... you can't even articulate what the paradox is. Hint: the paradox arises from idealized geometry and rigid bodies. It's not just the disc that gets destroyed - it's Euclidean geometry... which leads directly to General Relativity. And in that world rotating discs are just fine but your brain gets destroyed.  >:D
--- End quote ---
No. The paradox is Einsteinists can't understand how a log gets radial cracks when it dries. The reason is that there is more shrinkage in the circumferential dimension than the shrinkage in the radial direction. The relativistic shrinkage for a spinning log is similar, there is more shrinkage of the circumferential dimension, actually the relativistic shrinkage in the radial direction is zero here. Both effects are real. Both must result in radial cracks (if severe enuff). So now i have explained it twice, using almost the same wording each time. I have explained the answer to the paradox. There was/is no need for a GTR explanation. If relativity destroys Euclidean geometry (it always duz) then so be it. I believe in relativistic length contraction. But not in STR length contraction. Actually i don’t believe in Lorentzian length contraction.

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---
--- Quote ---I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.

But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.
--- End quote ---
Because one can start with the principle of relativity and derive the Lorentz Transformations. Again - this is part of the predictive power of relativity. From first principles, theoretical predictions led to the observation of real phenomena. Feynman made note of this,
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
 
--- End quote ---
The Lorentz Transformations are not the  same as the STR transformations. The terms mean different things. Einstein's V is the relative velocity. Lorentz's V is the aetherwind.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---For those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of relativity—it just changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass. From the formula itself it is easy to see that this mass increase is very small in ordinary circumstances. If the velocity is even as great as that of a satellite, which goes around the earth at 5 mi/sec, then v/c=5/186,000: putting this value into the formula shows that the correction to the mass is only one part in two to three billion, which is nearly impossible to observe. Actually, the correctness of the formula has been amply confirmed by the observation of many kinds of particles, moving at speeds ranging up to practically the speed of light. However, because the effect is ordinarily so small, it seems remarkable that it was discovered theoretically before it was discovered experimentally. Empirically, at a sufficiently high velocity, the effect is very large, but it was not discovered that way. Therefore it is interesting to see how a law that involved so delicate a modification (at the time when it was first discovered) was brought to light by a combination of experiments and physical reasoning. Contributions to the discovery were made by a number of people, the final result of whose work was Einstein’s discovery.
--- End quote ---
Einstein's attitude to E=mcc varied over the years. In later years he did not like the idea that mass increases with speed. In aether theory an object has an absolute mass. However, i don’t rule out that an object can have an apparent mass, & that this can depend on velocity (which has to do with length contraction of our measuring rods with velocity, & ticking dilation of our clocks with velocity).
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---It's the combination of theoretical prediction leading to experimental verification that makes relativity so persuasive and powerful. It is why everyone who does real physics is an "Einsteinist" as you derisively say. Because it gets results. And where engineers need it... it works, beautifully. And as a mechanism for tying together so many phenomena it is elegant in its statements but complex in its application.
--- End quote ---
It elegantly gives us dozens of particles that exist in Einsteinian mathland only.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---Whereas whatever aether theory you're peddling has no predictive power, no explanatory power, no consistency, no observability, and thus no usage in engineering. It's not even consistent with the other crackpots you admire which is one of the interesting things about crackpots - none of them agree with each other but they are ALL certain the rest of the world is in a conspiracy against them as you said in this thread many pages ago.

Coming back to it - is there a device I can build that needs aether theory to work? Does your aetherwind affect the outcomes of any experiments? Can anyone use it to build something no one else has predicted? No modern independent experiment in our Solar System where aetherwind might be important has ever needed it.
--- End quote ---
I think that lasers can benefit from aetherwind. At present science wonders why lasers are so inconsistent,  & play up so much. We have laser drift, & we need laser stabilisation, etc. Aetherists know that the background aetherwind blows through a lab at 500 km/s, & the direction changes during a sidereal day. The aetherwind adds to the speed of light, or it gives a crosswind effect etc. The aetherwind produces length contraction of the laser glass. The aetherwind produces angle contraction of the glass ends. What works well in the northern hemisphere might not work so well in the southern hemisphere.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---And probably the greatest tragedy here is how much time you've wasted on it when you could've learned some vector calculus. It's quite a shame really - if anything represents the ultimate evolution of an 'aether' theory it's the formulation of curved spacetime as described by General Relativity and quantum fields as described by Quantum Electrodynamics and some physicists do take that viewpoint that the term 'aether' gets a bad rap given what it's 19th century failure grew into. (I'm personally fine burying the 'aether' term because it's less confusing. For example, even though Newtonian Optics has similarities to QED, we don't use terms like "corpuscles" to describe light... we call them photons...)
--- End quote ---
Aether has never failed anything anytime. Every properly designed experiment has found aetherwind.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---But, to you, STR, GTR and QFT is all rubbish... ah well... I guess you won't be playing nice in the sandbox.  :-//
--- End quote ---
STR & GTR are certainly rubbish. I don’t know much about QFT. There might be some areas where QFT is not compatible with aether theory. I think that QFT invokes a weird kind of aether, which produces virtual particles that fill any hole anywhere anytime. They are so magical that it’s a shame to even try to invent a theory at all. No matter how silly the theory their shmoo particles will fill any holes. And if u feel hungry u can eat the shmoos. I heard that Dirac even used his own equations to wipe his bum, his equations were so good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo
A shmoo is shaped like a plump bowling pin with stubby legs. It has smooth skin, eyebrows, and sparse whiskers—but no arms, nose, or ears. Its feet are short and round, but dexterous, as the shmoo's comic book adventures make clear. It has a rich gamut of facial expressions and often expresses love by exuding hearts over its head. Cartoonist Al Capp ascribed to the shmoo the following curious characteristics:
•   They reproduce asexually and are incredibly prolific, multiplying faster than rabbits. They require no sustenance other than air.
•   Shmoos are delicious to eat, and are eager to be eaten. If a human looks at one hungrily, it will happily immolate itself—either by jumping into a frying pan, after which they taste like chicken, or into a broiling pan, after which they taste like steak. When roasted they taste like pork, and when baked they taste like catfish. Raw, they taste like oysters on the half-shell.
•   They also produce eggs (neatly packaged), milk (bottled, grade-A), and butter—no churning required. Their pelts make perfect bootleather or house timbers, depending on how thick one slices them.
•   They have no bones, so there's absolutely no waste. Their eyes make the best suspender buttons, and their whiskers make perfect toothpicks. In short, they are simply the perfect ideal of a subsistence agricultural herd animal.
•   Naturally gentle, they require minimal care and are ideal playmates for young children. The frolicking of shmoos is so entertaining (such as their staged "shmoosical comedies") that people no longer feel the need to watch television or go to the movies.
•   Some of the more tasty varieties of shmoo are more difficult to catch, however. Usually shmoo hunters, now a sport in some parts of the country, use a paper bag, flashlight, and stick to capture their shmoos. At night the light stuns them, then they may be whacked in the head with the stick and put in the bag for frying up later on

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 09:38:32 am ---
--- Quote ---I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.
--- End quote ---
We already know you live in another universe. No need to remind us.
I'm going to try to respond less to this thread because I have actual post-graduate homework to do but I suppose I should say thank you for giving me the opportunity to sharpen my 'Einsteinian' propaganda and hopefully share some useful knowledge to the silent observers in this thread.
You can have the last word for now because I know you must have it in order to repeat your religious devotion to an obsolete 19th century theory. Long-live phlogiston!  >:D
--- End quote ---
I will stick to my aether, & u can stick to your Einsteinian stuff, stuff that has the distinction of being proven wrong before it was invented.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 12:32:46 am --- I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.
--- End quote ---
Oh right, of course, how silly of me. The aether is static when you need it to be and blowing when you need it to be. Who needs consistency in a theory when you're making it up as you go along without a shred of mathematics?
--- End quote ---
  Yes the aether is always blowing hence there is always an aetherwind. But sometimes i simply mention the aether, but i am fully aware that an in depth analysis if it gets that far will probably involve the aetherwind.

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---
--- Quote ---I doubt that Einsteinist's can explain away their catastrophe for the Faraday Disc Paradox by invoking GTR. However Einsteinists have an almost limitless menu of fudges twists tricks etc. The youtube i linked mentions about 6 different motions of the discs & probes. I doubt that GTR can explain even one of them.

But lets eliminate GTR by changing the spinning discs to non-spinning discs. We remove the axles. Now instead of spinning the discs we simply move them up or down either individually or together or in opposite directions, hence we have the same number of 6 different motions, & we will see the same kinds of voltages, & there is no possibility of GTR playing a role here in any way.
--- End quote ---
Are you sure? Have you done this experiment? Do you have any idea what the difference is between a rotating non-inertial reference frame and an inertial reference frame?
--- End quote ---

I havnt done the experiment. I think there are 8 combinations of motions. I would put money on the outcome. But the positioning of the probes might not be simple.

There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---I'm going to jump ahead to something else you said to someone else because it's relevant,
--- Quote ---I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
--- End quote ---
Not that I wish to dredge up the pseudoscience of Mehdi and Co. in this thread - but it is not surprising you don't understand relativity in the Faraday Disc and also agree with Mehdi and Co.
I say this because what's tricky about the Faraday Disc is that it is a rotating field - i.e. it is a non-conservative field so it also exhibits path-dependency.

Now I admit I stated this is a GR phenomena and referred you to Panofsky & Philips who themselves would refer you to Schiff so maybe you want more details. For that - I'd suggest this paper but the mathematics are ghastly and if you're weak in calculus this will just make your eyes bleed:
"Charged Particles and the Electro-Magnetic Field in Non-Inertial Frames of Minkowski Spacetime: II. Applications: Rotating Frames, Sagnac Effect, Faraday Rotation, Wrap-up Effect"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf
If this is too hard (let's be real, it is very hard), then try these introductory texts on the trickiness of rotating reference frames:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer
--- End quote ---

STR is rubbish, Minkowski spacetime is rubbish. The Silberstein GTR explanation for the Sagnac Effect deserves some respect koz i respect Silberstein.
Magnetic fields are static in the aether, ie they cant rotate, koz magnetic fields cant go sideways (ie they cant crab or sidle). However i suppose that we can make a pseudo-rotating field, which appears to rotate.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---And honestly, before getting all worked up about the Faraday Disc, which is an immensely complex problem, the solution to the disc is wrapped up in the same solution that the two links above are really driving at - solving the Ehrenfest Paradox (the solution to which motivated the creation of General Relativity).
--- End quote ---
The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---There has been quite a bit of literature written on the electrodynamics of rotating reference frames. This isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub
--- End quote ---
A part of that iceberg is Cohn's electrodynamics, which preceded Einstein's, Einstein even used Cohn's heading, & then Einstein did not mention Cohn in his index.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am --- And I'm not terribly interested in parsing your interpretation of Biot-Savart and Ampere. I'm much more persuaded by the fact that we can start with Lorentz transformations and Gauss' Law and use relativity to derive Ampere's Law mathematically:
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf

--- End quote ---
I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.

But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---@bsfeechannel - if you're reading this, then the links above are utterly fascinating to me as the circular train clock synchronization scenario reminds me of line integration around a circulating magnetic field adding up to non-zero EMF as predicted by Faraday's Law. The synchronization of the clocks is also non-zero. In the second link, even though Clocks 1 and 2 are both on they disk, both rotating at the same rate, they do not read the same times after circumventing different closed paths. It gives me a lot of amazing things to ponder about the physical meaning of line integration.

--- End quote ---
I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.
PlainName:

--- Quote ---STR is rubbish, Minkowski spacetime is rubbish.
--- End quote ---

Aetherwind is rubbish. Electons are a spelling mistake.

There, I believe that refutes your suppositions appropriately and you can now see the light.
SiliconWizard:
That's quite fun. Even the string theory is not as funky as this, and it's already pretty twisted (no pun intended).
aetherist:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 06, 2022, 06:05:28 pm ---That's quite fun. Even the string theory is not as funky as this, and it's already pretty twisted (no pun intended).
--- End quote ---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo                               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo_plot
"Shmoo plot" is a technical term relating to the graphical display of test results in electrical engineering, dating back at least to 1966.[29] The name most likely arose because the shape of the two-dimensional plots often resembled a shmoo. The term is also a verb: to "shmoo" means to run the test.

The wiki article re shmoos fails to advise that kigmy shmoos had a large target painted on their bums, koz they loved being kicked. If u had a pet shmoo u would kick it every time say your team lost.

Us aetherists know what kigmy shmoos feel like.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 11:48:16 pm ---
--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on March 05, 2022, 11:08:23 pm ---
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 04, 2022, 11:38:33 pm ---
--- Quote ---Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.
--- End quote ---
HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.
--- End quote ---
Man, it is striking to see how the argument of these crackpots obey the same pattern. He thinks that pseudovectors are something someone who doesn't understand of vectors "invokes".
From wikipedia:
--- Quote ---Physical examples of pseudovectors include torque, angular velocity, angular momentum, magnetic field, and magnetic dipole moment.
--- End quote ---
It's the same thing with the KVLiars, who think that "invoking" the concept of non-conservative fields to explain why KVL doesn't hold for a circuit immersed in a varying magnetic field means that energy is not conserved and therefore Walter Lewin doesn't understand how magnetic induction works.

And thank you for the eye-opening videos from Professor Dave Explains about the debunking of those pseudo-science con artists' claims. They show that misleading the audience has become a lucrative business for incompetent people with a hidden agenda.
--- End quote ---
prof Dave appears to have lots of good stuff in his youtube site. He has 1.85 million subscribers & 158 million views.
Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille has 37k subscribers & 1.7 million views.
prof Dave got 512k views for his debunking footage. Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille got 49k views for his debunking of prof Dave's debunking. And clearly Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille's debunking wins 100 to zero. prof Dave can be seen to be very ignorant in the CMBR area.

I have emailed Crothers to ask him if the wiki pseudo vectors are in the same category as the Einstein (GTR) pseudo vectors.

Einstein’s Pseudotensor- a Meaningless Concoction of Mathematical Symbols   Stephen J. Crothers   23 January 2020
Abstract: In an attempt to make his General Theory of Relativity comply with the usual conservation of energy and momentum for a closed system which a vast array of experiments has ascertained, Mr. A. Einstein constructed, ad hoc, his pseudotensor. That it is not a tensor is outside the very mathematical structure of his theory. Beyond that, it violates the rules of pure mathematics. It is therefore a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.

https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector

I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
I dont remember what eev-Dave said.
The  probes can deceive.
This probe problem shows up in the Faraday Disc Paradox too.

--- End quote ---
Hi Stephen.
Is Einstein’s (non-ok) pseudovectors the same as the wiki (ok-ish) pseudovectors.
Aetherist. March 2022.

https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector
https://vixra.org/pdf/2104.0006v1.pdf


Hi Aetherist.
Thankyou for your query. The short answer is no.
In the case of a given vector, irrespective of the coordinate system employed, the vector is not altered. The pseudovector you have cited is a change in orientation of a vector with some operation, such as the cross product a x b which is 180 degrees out of phase with b x a because a x b = - b x a, where a and b are vectors.

In tensor language a vector is a tensor of rank 1. In the case of Einstein's pseudotensor the rank is 2. According to Einstein and his followers it acts 'like a tensor' under linear transformations of coordinates. Tensors of rank 2 can have two superscripts (called contravariant)  or two subscripts (called covariant) or one superscript and one subscript (called mixed). As explained in my article, Einstein's pseudotensor is defined in its mixed form. Since it acts 'like a tensor' it can be contracted 'like a tensor', as explained in my article. When a tensor is contracted its order decreases by 2 because one superscript and one subscript drop out under the tensor operation of contraction. So a 2nd-rank mixed tensor, when contracted, produces a tensor of rank 0, which is simply a scalar, i.e. an invariant. Now the contraction of Einstein' pseudotensor produces an invariant.

Examination of the resultant expression for the invariant reveals that it is constructed solely from the components of the metric tensor and its first-derivatives: that is, a first-order intrinsic differential invariant:- first order because only the first-derivatives appear in it and intrinsic because no terms other than those of the metric tensor itself appear in the invariant.

But the pure mathematicians proved in 1901 that it is in fact impossible to construct an invariant solely from the components of the metric tensor and their 1st-derivatives. That is, 1st-order intrinsic differential invariants do not exist. Thus, by the method of reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudotensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols, so anything that employs it is similarly meaningless.

But Einstein's field equations can be written explicitly in terms of his pseudotensor (his unimodular coordinate form), which he employed in his 1915 paper on his theory. Hence his field equations are nonsense, bearing in mind that his field equations must hold for all systems of coordinates. Since they do not, his theory is nonsense from day one. Case closed. Attached is my full published paper on this issue.
Yours faithfully, Steve Crothers

https://www.academia.edu/68876325/Response_to_Crothers_Exposition_of_Unimodular_Defect
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod