The h Bar

0celo7

01:31

@dmckee I think my prof wants to send me to Fermilab

Your old stomping grounds, right?

(For like a weekend)

GPhys

02:04

@FenderLesPaul Still waiting to hear from UCLA, Brown, U Penn (presumably rejections, I guess? I think U Penn hasn't sent out their main around of acceptances yet though)

I'm traveling to visit Stony Brook this Saturday :)

I'll take the train over and visit NYU as well while I'm out there

0celo7

@GPhys you around

dmckee

02:27

@0celo7 One of them. I spent a lot more time at JLAB.

It's a big place, though, so I might or might not be familiar with where ever you're going to be.

But if someone suggests going to Two Brothers, say "yes".

Much better than Chicago style pizza.

DanielSank

@dmckee Everything's better than Chicago style pizza.

"Chicago style pizza" is more like a bread/cheese casserole.

It has little, if anything, to do with pizza.

dmckee

I was toying with describing it as "a tarted up quiche", but I don't think there are actually any eggs in it. Probably.

DanielSank

This is pizza

user507974

@DanielSank this is something that belongs in my stomach

@dmckee what do you think of oak ridge

0celo7

@DanielSank where is the meat?

I approve of the basil tho

dmckee

02:37

@user507974 Never been there. It's not a place you see much of on a casual basis.

0celo7

@dmckee Wrong person.

dmckee

I confess that I used to think that canadian bacon and pineapple make the best pizza toppings.

user507974

@dmckee well it is tasty even if it is "unrefined"

dmckee

Then I lived in Las Cruces and encountered New Mexican Hawiian Pizza: Canadian Bacon, pineapple and green chilies. Much better.

But most places won't supply good chilies and put jalapenos on instead.

user507974

@dmckee never been a big chili peppers guy, more bell peppers

0celo7

02:40

@dmckee Wrong person!

dmckee

So it was.

user507974

@0celo7 yea, i noticed that too but hey i pay attention here

so i saw it anyways

@dmckee yea, im not much of a moving type of person but a while at oak ridge would be pretty interesting

0celo7

@user507974 I'm at ORNL.

Down the road at least.

Been there a few times.

user507974

@0celo7 really?

thats pretty cool

0celo7

@user507974 Look at my profile

user507974

02:42

makes sense

I was down the road from JPL

@0celo7 Interned at JPL for a while, kinda trippy when you are looking back to the spot you use to look at JPL from and being like well shit I got to get on the other side of that fence

0celo7

@user507974 I interned at the Senate and would get shot if I tried to get in the places where I had access

user507974

@0celo7 How were the people you intereacted with there?

0celo7

@user507974 For the most part really nice, why?

I only met one guy who was super obnoxious.

Oh come on.

Homework problem in analysis: if $h$ is continuous, show that $\{x\mid h(x)=0\}$ is closed

I can't use "continuous preimage of a closed set is closed"

DanielSank

04:09

@user507974 Yeah that's what really good pizza looks like.

@0celo7 No meat on a margherita.

0celo7

@DanielSank why

DanielSank

@0celo7 Well, it masks the intended flavors.

0celo7

@DanielSank hippy

DanielSank

if you make the crust properly, use good cheese and don't F--- up the sauce by adding anything other than tomatoes and salt, you get a delicious and well balanced product.

@0celo7 How does having a refined taste make me a hippy?

0celo7

@DanielSank You asking that makes you a hippy bro

DanielSank

04:12

@0celo7 Ok. Go eat your Top Ramen.

0celo7

@DanielSank Ew

DanielSank

@0celo7 I made this a few days ago and have left-overs.

I feel like I ought to advertise that more strongly.

Ahem

BEST CHILI YOU'VE EVER HAD, RIGHT HERE

0celo7

Lol.

You've shown that here before.

If it has no meat, it's shit.

Sorry.

If it has beans, it's not good.

Sorry.

@DanielSank If I can take QM based on Sakurai and Cohen-Tannoudji next semester, should I take it?

Over, say, topology?

DanielSank

Ocelo7: Insults ur foodz. Asks for your helpz.

^ Is dick move.

0celo7

@DanielSank My honest opinion is not an insult.

DanielSank

04:20

@0celo7 I dunno, sure.

0celo7

@DanielSank You serious?

Would taking grad level QM as a sophomore help my internship chances a lot?

@DanielSank What does one actually do in "quantum optics"

GPhys

05:05

@0celo7 What did you need?

0celo7

@GPhys Had a question about my analysis homework: we proved the continuity of $\sin x$ in class, can I prove continuity of $\cos x$ by using continuity of $\sin(x-\pi/2)$?

(because they are equal)

GPhys

@0celo7 Sure, if you are satisfied you have proved they are equal

0celo7

@GPhys uh

hmm

DanielSank

@0celo7 In class or in real life?

@0celo7 Sure why not.

@0celo7 No.

0celo7

@DanielSank So there's no reason to take it

@DanielSank Either give me a straight answer or just let me know you're not interested

@DanielSank both

Sidarth

05:34

@JohnDuffield you can answer it>>???

0celo7

I don't care if it was shut down by Archimedes Plutonium. I know censorship when I see it. — Marty Green 5 hours ago

lel

JokelaTurbine

05:54

LOL :-) @Daniel Grisom @Gert @user36790 physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/121457 "This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. " ....Though I even got the Bounty of 50! Well, You know what. I Laugh on you, As Galileo Laught on pope. Why? Similarily Cause Galileo; had really seen the Saturn moon, and he has really studied the stuff..

0celo7

0

A: Event horizon, and Hawking radiation

In quantum field theory, particle antiparticle pairs spontaneously pop out of the vacuum all the time, essentially borrowing energy from the vacuum and then subsequently annihilate each other. However, when an event horizon is present, you can get situations where the pair is generated very clo...

> In quantum field theory, particle antiparticle pairs spontaneously pop out of the vacuum all the time, essentially borrowing energy from the vacuum and then subsequently annihilate each other.

> particle antiparticle pairs spontaneously pop out of the vacuum all the time

> essentially borrowing energy from the vacuum

@ACuriousMind ::has stroke::

JokelaTurbine

@KyleKanos @JohnRennie @JonCuster The Above goes to you too. @YashasSamaga You are a true scientist. Keep it that way.

DanielSank

06:10

@0celo7 I did give you a straight answer.

JokelaTurbine

06:20

@Censors; Here you have an answer which doesnt't answer the question; physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239675/… it's from @annaV Or maybe the Question should be closed as it's obviously "Not clear what was asked." @NayanTelrandhe @Curious :-)

Cause it's not aloud to aske why the shade has a shape, only 1/r^2 questions are aloud here..

...some sarcasm is around. It's good for Mental Health. I don't need this Dialogue, I can write my own Dialogo en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue

oh Simplicio speak with Sagredo! Greetings Salviati

John Rennie

06:42

@0celo7 That Marty Green is a nice chap. He's the one who responds to attempts to help by saying So you don't know the answer then.

Physics has a reputation for attracting people who are emotionally immature, though I almost everyone hereabouts seems pretty normal (well, as normal as physicists ever get :-)

Though I note we have seen a couple of puerile outbursts just recently.

JokelaTurbine

Dear Sirs, I propose you reed the Part 6 "Experimental Science" from Opus Majus from Roger Bacon. It's from Year 1267, and though it has partial flaws conncted the era, it's a perfectly honest for "Scientific method". I think it's mature enough.

It was closed to the selfs of Vatikan for 630 Years

Though Somehow the info got also to Columbus and so he sailed to west.

But pls. remain busy searching the Dark Matter & Energy. And maybe you even get forward with the strings. -some day. (Maybe not) This work does absolute no harm for nature, and will provide serious research objects for centuries. That's sort of guarenteed you know..

user116211

06:59

Who pinged me?

user116211

Ha!

Slereah

If anyone wants my bounty now's a good time

user116211

@JokelaTurbine: Now, why are you targeting only three users? they have not conferred you -10, I guess?

Slereah

8 hours left and all the answers are awful :V

especially you @JokelaTurbine

user116211

@Slereah all the best.

JokelaTurbine

07:01

@Slereah I have No problem with my answers awfullness.

user116211

@JohnRennie: Marty even thinks his posts are all deleted by David Z ;D

JokelaTurbine

@user36790 Nothing personal. I pinged the whole delete list. And I do understand you. I have no hate, or "puerile outburst". Just a grin.

user116211

@JokelaTurbine Ha! sorry for that.

user116211

@0celo7: Who's this in your avatar?

JokelaTurbine

@user36790 No need for being sorry.

@Slereah Ok, I give another shot. There is not only Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. There is also DARK ANGELS! These are catching random particles around the universe. They are like the "Go Back to Start, Do Not Pass Go" -card in Monopoly. All the sudden your Timelike Curve just get's closed through STRINGS. So the answer is; It's the "DARK ANGELS" and finally over time, every particle will meet the Dark Angel. And there is no way You can recognize the Dark Angle. But believe me THEY DO EXIST!

Slereah

07:18

My question is not related to any dark matter nor dark energy.

@JokelaTurbine None of your response make any sort of sense

They are not wrong, just incoherent.

I don't think you get to act smug about your total ignorance of physics.

Also stop posting that "paper" you wrote. Putting a paper on Research Gate is basically the same as putting one on Pastebin.

JokelaTurbine

@Slereah Thanks for "incoherent" I agree. I wont post my "paper" here anymore either.

I understand why it sounds Incoherent. The mass is all over in physics. It's written all over the place Only few SI-units are "massless".

You just can't talk "coherently" from "Force" and "Energy" without a mass. The plaine definition of these two issues simply makes it impossible.

But say me Photon energy is defined coherent. Why E=mc^2 is suddenly NOT valid?

user54412

@DanielSank yes thank you. Excessive toppings are just a way to mask a terrible pizza.

JokelaTurbine

The whole Gravity is actually quite incoherent, when you study it carefully. And also the Masses of Proton, Neutron and Electrons. There is much more incoherency in Physics with mass, than in Physics without mass. Thus my joke about Dark-stuff above.

Slereah

Goddamn

We already have JD

We don't need another crank

JokelaTurbine

@Slereah Take it easy. I have no need to prove anything or to win some conversation. I just say my sayings few times and then I leave. It's the true Scientific approach. I am not even claiming using mass in physics is wrong. It's just a another was. More simple way to define stuff. But as every simplifications, it has it's limits. If you remain inside these limits, everything is fine, correct, and coherent.

"It's just a another was. " typo "It's just another way"

user54412

07:34

@Slereah Don't worry. Trump will make Physics.SE great again.

user507974

@DanielSank theres been a bit of media buzz about google and its qcomputing today

DanielSank

07:51

@user507974 What happened?

@ChrisWhite Totally agree (usually)

@0celo7 So what? Something wrong with showing a good thing multiple times?

user507974

@DanielSank looking back at it i suspect it was probably just something trending on only the things im subscribed to on facebook

link backs to an article from the 18th about computing power being 100 times stronger (of course some misunderstanding in the article but thats all popular science journalism)

JokelaTurbine

08:09

@Slereah Here's the photon Incoherence discussed; physics.stackexchange.com/questions/240906/…

John Rennie

@Slereah I suspect you're being optimistic and you won't get a really definitive answer unless a quantum gravity expert wanders in - which isn't likely. You're asking a pretty deep question.

JokelaTurbine

I just got interesting Question in mind; "How you derive the Force for bending of light from the Law of gravitation?" But I don't bother to ask it as it would obviously be "Not clear what you are asking."

John Rennie

@JokelaTurbine you solve the geodesic equation.

Rather than do it rigorously we usually use a weak field approximation, which is fine except very near to an event horizon.

Though there is no force - the light travels locally in a straight line.

Or are you considering only Newtonian gravity?

in which case it's routine since the gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass.

JokelaTurbine

@JohnRennie No. I am considering the whole gravity.

The best physical laws are universal

John Rennie

@JokelaTurbine the weak field calculation is straightforward if a bit messy and you'll find it in any GR textbook

JokelaTurbine

08:23

@JohnRennie This well said

might it even be a universal law?

John Rennie

In A First Course in GR by Schutz you'll find the calculation in chapter 11, page 293 in my edition.

JokelaTurbine

@JohnRennie Thanks.

I have some deeper thoughts here, but now I need to clear some formalities in real life. Thanks for good Chat; I appreciated it.

Slereah

or just solve the maxwell equation in curved spacetime

there's quite a few exact solutions for it

including exact waves with backreaction!

Secret

dfdd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKyGDWeblQws
asfas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AmAVBsz8AM

Slereah

but nobody knows about this

Danu

08:29

@vzn Most people immediately accepted the proof as correct, but they couldn't understand the details. He never filled them in (he published all papers within a year) but it was correct and eventually understood by others.

Slereah

because someone had the bad idea to put it in MTW

MTW, where ideas go to die

John Rennie

@Slereah why do you say that? I've always regarded MTW as the closest GR has to a bible.

Slereah

Well yes, that's kind of my point

Just like the bible it is a rambly mess without any structure

John Rennie

And no-one actually reads it? :-)

Slereah

nobody reads it but will quote it to prove their points

Although that might be more Hawking Ellis

For the proof see HE

Danu

08:33

Especially his "theorem 7.4" (from the second paper) was hard

Slereah

MTW is great but finding anything in it is hard work

Danu

@JohnRennie Do you know anyone who did? :P

John Rennie

@Slereah They need to publish it as an ebook so it's easily searchable.

@Danu I must admit I use the swimming pool approach. Dive in for a quick swim and emerge invigorated but shivering.

Secret

I am guessing the energy it obtained to allow the beads to accelerate in the first place in the magnet gun came form we initially pushing it...?

Otherwise, by symmetry, how can we have magnetic potential converted into kinetic energy, then hit the magnet, which then the momentum is transferred to the 2nd bead in each magnet, that bead then overcome the magnetic potential and still have excess energy as KE to be accelerated to the next magnet...?

I think I might have to sit down and work out the maths of this later to better understand why the intiall KE + magnetic potential results in lar…

Danu

@JohnRennie Heh.

@JohnRennie There are, of course, ways to get this already ;)

I'll stick to good ol' Carroll though

Secret

08:37

@Danu Caroll's GR lecture note is good

That's how I got first introduced to charts, atlas and other differential geometyr related things

John Rennie

@Danu there is a scanned copy (DJVU) floating about the seedier bits of the Internet, but that isn't searchable and I've never see a pdf or epub.

Danu

I know there is a searchable one (don't ask me how I know that! ;D)

also there is an official DJVU OCR website

any2djvu.djvuzone.org

Secret

preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes

PS the old one I used to read is now gone

Slereah

Carroll is good, but Carroll is like

Very much basic GR

Although he does have a section on QFT

Which is nice

John Rennie

08:53

I wouldn't go to MTW to learn GR, but it's fun to dip into because it has all sorts of interesting weird stuff and it's written in an entertaining way.

Slereah

yeah

You need some books with weird GR things in it

It's always nice

DanielSank

@Danu Hi, baby <3

Danu

@DanielSank :*

DanielSank

@Danu (^^)

Danu

How have you been?

Slereah

09:11

So apparently the new Ghostbusters trailer has some QFT on a whiteboard

Danu

Heh

@Slereah The very next shot even has SUGRA!

user507974

09:39

@Slereah about the only thing of interest in that movie probably

i mean essentially the entire appeal of the original ghostbusters was to bring together a few of the biggest comedic stars of the the time and give them an entertaining canvas to do what they do best

Slereah

It seems pretty mediocre

Even the trailer was boring

Secret

10:11

Imagine what happens if you make a fighting game using the contributions of
Stephen Hawking, Einstein etc,

kotaku.com/…

Slereah

I don't think Hawking would do well in a fighting game

then again Tekken had this guy : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Bosconovitch

Sidarth

10:30

lol

ACuriousMind

The info to the questioner provided by referenced material can not be termed "plagiarised" in usual terminology of physics sharing-i do admit that answer should contain original contributions also if more researches are done by the author or 'answer' person ;so that research output may be added in future edits. — drvrm 6 hours ago

I feel mocked. Does this user seriously not understand that copying text others have written without clearly stating you copied it is plagiarism?

Danu

@ACuriousMind I feel like the user does not understand. Don't get too worked up about it.

Secret

I don't know if he indeed don't understand it, should we explain it to him

(pressing enter too sooon.._)

ACuriousMind

10:46

@Danu I do get worked up about it because this should not be a difficult concept!

ACuriousMind

Kilolines? Seriously?

Danu

@ACuriousMind :D

@ACuriousMind Why do you do this nowadays?

ACuriousMind

@Danu Hmm? I began doing it after I discovered ---- breaks a "chat wall of text" into distinct chunks

Danu

@ACuriousMind In what sense?

The small dotted lines?

ACuriousMind

@Danu Okay, compare:

Danu

10:57

Because it doesn't do that.

ACuriousMind

First topic

Second Topic

And now:

First topic

ACuriousMind

second topic

Danu

Ah, wall like that. Kay.

You mean it breaks "text bubbles"

ACuriousMind

Yes

But breaking bubbles sounds mean :D

Danu

nu-uh, only bursting them!

Danu

11:08

So is any connected one (complex) dimensional manifold a Riemann surface?

ACuriousMind

@Danu How do you define "Riemann surface" if not as "one-dimensional complex manifold"?

Danu

I don't know; it is for instance not clear to me that they are all coverings of $\Bbb C$. I thought it was more about finding natural domains of analytic functions and it is not obvious to me that for any complex manifold there is a corresponding function

ACuriousMind

@Danu I'm pretty sure that "finding domains of analytic functions" is not what finding Riemann surfaces is - the Riemann sphere does not admit a global holomorphic function, and I don't think any compact Riemann surface does

The sphere also isn't a covering of the complex plane, as far as I can see

Danu

@ACuriousMind Surely it admits constant functions :P

ACuriousMind

@Danu Yes. "non-trivial" is implicit there :P

Danu

11:15

@ACuriousMind Okay. I was thinking in terms of e.g. the square root or logarithm. There one seems to get nice coverings.

ACuriousMind

Sure, those "multivalued" functions become single-valued on a covering

Danu

That's what I thought it was about; finding good domains for those

ACuriousMind

But those coverings by far do not exhaust all Riemann surfaces (which to me really are defined just as 1D complex manifolds)

Danu

They are defined as such, but I was under a different impression before starting on this book

ACuriousMind

If you want to view them as domains of functions, I'd say they are the natural domains for meromorphic functions

Danu

11:20

Of course I meant that :p

However, Forster at least alludes to my idea at the start of ch. 1

> we get the notion of an abstract Riemann surface and these may be considered as the natural domain of definition of analytic functions in one complex variable.

analytic

I'm a bit confused now.

ACuriousMind

As I said, I believe that's just wrong. Compact Riemann surfaces do not admit non-constant analytic functions.

Danu

Nobody said compact yet

ACuriousMind

Nobody said they aren't compact, either ;)

Danu

Maybe the examples that form domains where e.g. $\sqrt z$ is single valued are not compact

Yeah, I don't think they are

ACuriousMind

And if his "abstract Riemann surface" means "non-compact Riemann surface", that's a strange use of the word "abstract"

Danu

11:25

Because they're supposed to be "bigger" than the complex plane

ACuriousMind

Covers of the complex plane cannot be compact, so no, they aren't

Danu

Yes, the ones obtained from analytic continuation are not compact according to wikipedia.

So I guess there is no problem

So I thought those noncompact ones were the most important ones

They are, historically.

ACuriousMind

The compact ones are much nicer, and possess better connections to other fields though. I don't think the non-compact ones correspond to projective varieties, for instance

JokelaTurbine

@Slereah MTW? You mean this; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_(book) 1200 Pages, may I have a link to some PDF copy, I will read it in no time. It's "only" 2x the size of "Strömungsmachinen" from Pfleiderer. Book which still costs ~ 400 $ though it's from Year 1952. I got once a similar "dialogue" about Specific-rpm of a Turbine, and I was proposed to study further with this book. So I bought it, read it in no time, and my point with turbines stood still straight there after;

The only thing which chainged was, that I learned to talk the language.

and I found some links, tocs.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/35651903.pdf but no full copy

ACuriousMind

And I think things like Mittag-Leffler and Cousin problems are mainly interesting to consider on the compact ones, but I could be wrong

Danu

11:31

@ACuriousMind The Mittag-Leffler and Weierstrass theorems are still interesting in the non-compact case

As witnessed by Forster only having a section on them in the chapter on non-compact ones.

ACuriousMind

@Danu With "Mittag-Leffler and Cousin problems" I mean what he does in §18. "Functions and Differential Forms with Prescribed Principal Parts"

Since in the non-compact case it turns out there are no restrictions for such functions to exist, I'd still say it's more interesting in the compact case where there can be global obstructions ;P

Danu

Okay.

Slereah

11:57

How many exact solutions to the EFE with realistic fields exist, anyway

There's that EM solution

The Starobinsky inflation

What else is there

I guess De Sitter is realistic for quantum fields in ground states?

Or AdS I dunno

JokelaTurbine

Slereah; I found the MTW and I will read it. Thanks.

JokelaTurbine

12:24

From preface ie; "Maxwell's theory recalls Einstein's theory in the time it took to win acceptance. Even as.late as 1904 a book could appear by so great an investigator as William
Thomson, Lord Kelvin, with the words, "The so-called 'electromagnetic theory of
light' has not helped us hitherto ... it seems to me that it is rather a backward
step ... the one thing about it that seems intelligible to me, I do not think is
admissible ... that there should be an electric displacement perpendicular to the

0celo7

13:33

@ACuriousMind Do I say "huh" a lot?

ACuriousMind

Yes

0celo7

oh fuck

ACuriousMind

What have you done to your profile picture?

0celo7

@ACuriousMind Changed it.

ACuriousMind

Well, duh. What does it show now?

Slereah

13:35

That is a photo of him

0celo7

@ACuriousMind Someone playing the oboe.

@Slereah Næ

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 But...why?

0celo7

@ACuriousMind I felt like it was time for a change.

That's...not at all how you draw the electric field of those two charges. — ACuriousMind 2 mins ago

lel

ACuriousMind

I'm less interested in why you changed it in general and more interested in why you chose someone playing the oboe

0celo7

Ah, that is a much better question.

The answer is: it's an inside joke.

With someone in the chat.

ACuriousMind

13:44

k, I have to wait for @BernardMeurer to explain it, then

0celo7

wtf how did you guess that

ACuriousMind

With ease ;)

John Duffield

@bolbteppa : the electromagnetic field isn't "a quantity that lives in 4 dimensional spacetime". It's a state of space. The space where that field is, is different to the space where it isn't. See Einstein talking about electromagnetic and gravitational fields here: "It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds".

0celo7

@ACuriousMind :o

You're OP

John Duffield

@0celo7 : I feel a bit iffy about the recent LIGO news actually.

Secret

13:52

what's iffy about it?

John Duffield

@Sidarth : yes, I can answer it.

@Secret : the rubber ruler thing. And the why-does-matter-fall-down thing.

Secret

what does that have to do with gravitational waves?

0celo7

Lol

@ACuriousMind would you believe me that I just think it's a funny picture

tpg2114

@ChrisWhite I have a question for you... One can write a Runge-Kutta scheme in (generally) two different ways. The first is something like Q^2 = Q^k - a_1*F(Q^2); Q^3 = Q^k - a_2^F(Q^2); ...; Q^(k+1) = Q^k + b_1*F(Q^k) + b_2*F(Q^2) + b_3*F(Q^3) + ... etc

And another way to write it is Q^2 = Q^k -g_1*F(Q^k); Q^3 = Q^k - g_2*F(Q^2); ...; Q^(k+1) = Q^k + g_n F(Q^n)

So the first form you end up storing the residuals and using them in a final, extra step

And the second form you just add the flux of the previous stage and when you're at the last stage, you're done. No extra adding fluxes

I'm trying to equate the two. So given a set of a_n and b_n, I want to find the g_n so I don't need to rewrite my scheme to store the fluxes

John Duffield

14:09

@Secret : lots.

tpg2114

I came up with an equation for them, but I had to assume things like F(A+B) = F(A)+F(B); F(aB) = aF(B) and F(F(A)) = F(A) and I'm not very comfortable with that last assumption. But I don't know how else to come up with the weights

Any ideas if that is right? Or if you've seen it done before?

John Duffield

@Slereah : f*ck off Slereah. I'm no crank. You're the one who believes in time travel and the multiverse and dismisses Einstein.

@JohnRennie : I've given a really definitive answer. The question isn't pretty deep, it displays a misunderstanding of what a CTCV actually is.

what a CTC actually is.

ACuriousMind

@tpg2114 Were you too lazy to type the dollar signs or did you forget that there's ChatJax for chat?

JokelaTurbine

@JohnDuffield You are not crank. But It's meaningless to fight about understanding. Every one of us just has our own level. see this; youtube.com/watch?v=iVv89zgTQMc and ask if he's wrong, or only explaining the things the highest comprehensive level to himself.

To me he's not wrong. I.e. it's not wrong to think that Earth is the center and other stuff rotates around it. It's only different coordinate system. And certain stuff is just pretty difficult to define through this coordinate system. But it's surely not wrong. And few simple issues are even easier to define through it. I don't have any need to fight about word definitions. It's aloud the give things many definitions. Some of them are more easier to understand.

John Duffield

14:26

@JokelaTurbine : you should read the Einstein digital papers.

tpg2114

@ACuriousMind I don't have ChatJax so the dollar signs just make it look worse for me and I wasn't strictly following Latex anyway. I figured it was good enough to get the point across what I was trying to do

JokelaTurbine

Thanks. I actually have allready noticed that hint from you. But my problem is not to try to understand more. I need to learn why others doesn't understand what I am explaining. So I have just read some part of The "MTW Gravitation", and I allready have noticed how to explain my thoughts better.

Einstein Theories are pretty solid. But if we take the mass away from the system, we don't have any curvature more. It's all just straight forward local energy interactions.

ACuriousMind

@tpg2114 I see

John Duffield

@JokelaTurbine : the important point is that light curves much the same way as sonar waves curve.

JokelaTurbine

@JohnDuffield Well it's just logical. Everything is only light in it's different apperances.

John Duffield

14:33

Light doesn't curve because spacetime is curved. It curves because space is inhomogeneous. Spacetime curvature relates to the tidal "force", not the "force" of gravity.

JokelaTurbine

"It curves because space is inhomogeneous" YES! Matter is just inhomogoneus amount of energy in local point

-or something like that- The language is not quite developed to describe this stuff.....

John Duffield

See answers like this. And read that Einstein material. Don't be a "my theory" guy. OK, I have to go I'm afraid.

JokelaTurbine

I have no theory. There is nothing really new. And the old way works quite well too.

I have only changed the point of view.

And I can do this only for myself. The arab guy in the Video link above must take of himself. I can't help him. Or anyone.

F-Kinf languge " take CARE of himself"

JokelaTurbine

14:55

Here's the full vid about youtube.com/watch?v=-9Jp_XCvVto the Guy I can only say; Take care& Try to make the best out of what you have ....

Transcript for