3 ms·
Sounds like a misunderstanding, I’d recommend reading the paper before jumping to conclusions. Certainly we covered the various tensors mentioned here in the cl
by _9hey 4y ago
Sounds like a misunderstanding, I’d recommend reading the paper before jumping to conclusions. Certainly we covered the various tensors mentioned here in the class I took - if you want details, you have to read past the summary.
General Relativity largely describes how geometry is nature - what may seem obvious from a mathematical perspective isn’t always so from a physical one. The results of using basis vectors for derivations aren’t riddled with artifacts of any particular coordinate system, as it would become immediately clear when expressing Christoffel symbols, for example - they wouldn’t be equal with other approaches.
One of the other students who was getting her PhD specializing in GR said that using a vector approach gave her intuition about concepts she had previously considered incomprehensible.
- hither_shores 4y ago> The results of using basis vectors for derivations aren’t riddled with artifacts of any particular coordinate system, as it would become immediately clear when expressing Christoffel symbols, for example - they wouldn’t be equal with other approaches. But the Christoffel symbols are artifacts of a particular coordinate system - the real object is the connection, of which the Christoffel symbols are just basis-dependent components.
- _9hey 4y agoI must admit I haven’t touched the subject for twelve years. It sounds like you have a vested interest in dark matter. I think you’d have better luck talking to the author or reading the paper. The arguments against it sounded plausible at the time.