Some Remarks on Paper 122

Subject: Fwd: Some Remarks on Paper 122
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:14:30 EST

Concerning planned paper 123: It is not clear to me how an index of a tensor index can be “compensated” by an integration. A tensor is a function for example

                                        W sup mu sub nu (t,X,Y,Z)  : R^4  –>  V^4 x V^4

where R^4 is the base manifold and V^4 is the vector space of the functional values. The latter has 16 dimensions because of the two indices mu,nu. Integration over the base manifold for a fixed index combination means that the functional value then is constant for all points in the base manifold. I do not see that an index can be effectively reduced or made obsolete by this method.

The situation was more specialized in the notes where the tensor for a certain index was zero with exeption of one index value, for example mu=0. In this case integration leads to a multiplicative constant of the tensor and the index mu then can indeed be omitted. Could you please explain this in more detail? I hope that I expressed it understandable what I meant.

Horst

—–Ursprüngliche Mitteilung—–

Von: EMyrone] at [aol.com

An: ted] at [annis.org; fdamador] at [comcast.net; sean] at [somewhere.ws; HorstEck] at [aol.com; dlindstrom] at [shaw.ca; kp.phys] at [btinternet.com; thenarmis] at [yahoo.com; raydela] at [sbcglobal.net; fucilla] at [electrosilicagroup.com; f.fucilla] at [steriwave.com; twidlar] at [yahoo.com; c.kellum] at [verizon.net; slloyd] at [engineer.com; aje] at [war fplc.com; annwvyn76] at [hotmail.com; garethjohnevans] at [hotmail.co.uk; w.stewart211] at [comcast.net; anthony.fucilla] at [btinternet.com; ccefalas] at [eie.gr; spomenka.kobe] at [ijs.si; burleigh.personal] at [gmail.com; croca] at [fc.ul.pt; J.Dunning-Davies] at [hull.ac.uk; larry] at [post.tau.ac.il; veziroglu] at [miami.edu; avanderm] at [du.edu

Verschickt: Mo., 24. Nov. 2008, 10:05

Thema: Some Remarks on Paper 122

This paper is now clearly in view to characters like Hawking and Rees, and they can easily make themselves aware of the fact that they are preaching nonsense in lieu of Baconian science. I think that paper 122 is so simple that anyone who claims not to understand it or worse, tries to misrepresent it, will only succeed in doing further harm to science. ECE theory has overhwelming interest in it, and has an overwhelming mandate among honest scientists. The same process is happening in science as in modern politics, a small group from Orwell’s “Animal Farm” tries to take control. This goes under the name of lucasian professor, planning committee or commisariat. They all have much the same purpose. So AIAS TGA is doing great work in bringing things out into the open.

 

 

 

  

________________________________________________________________________ AOL eMail auf Ihrem Handy! Ab sofort können Sie auch unterwegs Ihre AOL email abrufen. Registrieren Sie sich jetzt kostenlos.

Thanks for these remarks, in general I am using the method described by Lewis H. Ryder in his book, “Quantum Field Theory” (Cambridge University Press, second edition, 1996), page 86, eq. after his equation (3.26). Here the integrates a rank two tensor J sup mu sub nu over a hypersurface whose infinitesimal is d sigma sub mu. The result is a rank one tensor Q sub nu. Then in his eq. (3.46) he defines the angular momentum tensor as a volume integral over J sup 0 mu nu (which is proportional to the T sup 0 mu nu torsion tensor. I am just about to write up notes 123(1) and will give further details there. In general we are dealing with a rank three tensora (torsion) and rank four tensors (curvature). These are densities, so being densities, volume integration can be used to reduce the tensor rank and thus to reduce the complexity of the problem. The result is the same in vector notation as the current engineering model equations, but the derivation is considerably clarified and simplified.