Brent on the Metric Tensor (MT)

[Alan Grayson]

As I recall, in response to my question about which pair of vectors in the tangent space one must use to solve Einstein's Field Equation (since the MT is a linear function of two vectors in the tangent space, and the set of such pairs is infinite and possibly uncountable), you claimed any two vectors along some path is sufficient. But that assumes we know which path we're solving for. What if we want to determine the possible geodesics given some distribution of mass and energy? In general, according to experts, we must first determine the Metric Tensor in that region of space. But generally speaking, how is this done? TY, AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, January 27, 2025 at 10:43:55 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

As I recall, in response to my question about which pair of vectors in the tangent space one must use to solve Einstein's Field Equation (since the MT is a linear function of two vectors in the tangent space, and the set of such pairs is infinite and possibly uncountable), you claimed any two vectors along some path is sufficient. But that assumes we know which path we're solving for. What if we want to determine the possible geodesics given some distribution of mass and energy? In general, according to experts, we must first determine the Metric Tensor in that region of space. But generally speaking, how is this done? TY, AG

Why not just admit you don't know GR well enough to answer the question? AG 

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 1:01 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>As I recall, in response to my question about which pair of vectors in the tangent space one must use to solve Einstein's Field Equation (since the MT is a linear function of two vectors in the tangent space, and the set of such pairs is infinite and possibly uncountable), you [Brent] claimed any two vectors along some path is sufficient. But that assumes we know which path we're solving for.

The only reason to bother with solving Einstein's Field Equations is to get an answer to a question you have, Brent was assuming that although you didn't know the answer you at least knew enough to know what question you were asking, but apparently Brent was being too optimistic, you do not.  

 

> Why not just admit you don't know GR well enough to answer the question? AG 

Why not just admit that people on this list are getting tired of hearing you ask the same questions over and over and over again, eventually saying you understand , and then five minutes later ask the exact same question yet again.  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

8v9

[Alan Grayson]

From which of your uncountable worlds does this reply come from? 

8v9

[Alan Grayson]

Despite all your bluster and bullshit, I don't believe you have a clue how to calculate the value of the metric tensor at some point in a manifold.  

8v9

[Alan Grayson]

It's OK to not know enough about GR to answer my question about the MT, but please cease your BS that I've gotten the answer and forgot it. Try asking one of your uncountable selfs in one of your uncountable worlds and see if you can find one of your copies with a better memory. AG 

8v9

[Alan Grayson]

Oh, I forgot. You can't contact any of your uncountable copies, and yet you claim you have a great scientific theory; that is, UNVERIFIABLE. AG 

8v9

[Alan Grayson]

My reference to "uncountable" as a description of your numerous copies was not frivolous or a term of art. Imagine making a turn at a T intersection. Whichever turn you take, there exists an uncountable set of paths, corresponding to the set of possible curves to change direction. In fact, every time you change direction, in any context, the same applies. Further, the basis for claiming that everything that's possible to happen, must happen, is a question you've never answered. And to claim otherwise, if not an egregious lapse of memory, than a self-serving lie. AG

8v9