Fwd: David Feustel’s Suggested Short Monograph



Subject: Fwd: David Feustel’s Suggested Short Monograph
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 08:30:07 EDT


While I agree that there is a real need for many textbooks on ECE, I would find a document that focused soley on the curvature-torsion connection extremely helpful. I have got Horst’s code partially translated (it runs, just doesn’t get all the way through without some indexing errors), and I am now working on getting the Maxima functions converted to equivalent Maple functions. There is a possibility that there is no direct equivalent in Maple to the Maxima ev() function and a work-around might have to be used. The Maxima documentation is really good. Maple documentation is also good, but it’s taking me a while to find my way around in it.


On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 03:38:28AM -0400, EMyrone] at [aol.com wrote: > I suggest pulling together papers such as 15, 50, 88, 93, 95, 99 – 104, > 109, 112, 117, 120, 122, 129 and 130, and using the background notes to these > papers posted on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . This material also > illustrates what Alex Hill means by giving all the details. In fact all the > relevant details of Carroll’s chapters 1 to 3 are given in this material > amd sveral tiems over in cross checking proofs elsewhere on _www.aias.us_ > (http://www.aias.us) . Thre are nearly a thousand detailed background notes > available, and Horst Eckardt and I have cross checked nearly every one. It is > a matter of indexing and pulling themes together in different textbooks. > Funds will be needed for this work as pointed out by Alex. High quality > typesetting costs are substantial, but the totality of funds needed for this > centrally important publication work is still far smaller than funds needed > for a film, as Alex Hill point out. I have also given full details of how to > go from differential form notation (the least familiar to engineers and > chemists), to tensor notation (which few chemists and engineers, even today, > can grasp) and to the much better known Heaviside Gibbs vector notation. > All notations are equivalent. Also, computer code is increasingly available > for those who just wish to implement the mathematics without learning it. As > anyone who has used a computer knows, to code up you must really > understand everything. So books are needed to systematize the monograph and > material. Lar Felker’s book attracted an astounding amount of interst in preprint > format on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) , because it isolated the > concepts in a readable way. It all depends on what the reader wishes to learn. > > Similarly one can pick out various papers to produce textbooks with > different themes, as suggested yesterday. To do this authors of the very highest > quality must be hired. The task is far beyond a graduate student, who would > in any case be saturated by standard dogma by the age of 18. It needs a > very exceptional mind to grasp the whole of ECE theory in a person of that > age. There is a tremendous sea change going on in natural philosophy, with all > the concomitant and very unfortunate negativity of human nature. However, > one cannot stop the march of ideas, why should one try? > > > > > > > >

This could be written as Maple / Maxima documentation, and added to their manuals, proving to anyone who has a computer that the Einstein equation is obsolete. As mentioned, it is a matter of finding able authors, since my time is taken up entirely with GCUFT and new directions.


%d bloggers like this: