Re: E. Noether contra B. Carter

On 09/22/2024 09:18 AM, JanPB wrote:

On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 6:01:55 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>

The Starmaker wrote:

>
JanPB wrote:

>
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 7:31:58 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>

JanPB wrote:

>

[...]

>
Your math is correct but doesn't seem to have any meaning.

>
No geometric meaning (which I was hoping for).

>
i see, you have your own approach to doings things no one else does..

>

Also the P isn't standard and needs more clarification

>
K = < r^2 gamma' - rho^2 P(gamma') , gamma' >

>
OK, fair point.  Surprisingly perhaps, the Kerr spacetime has
an orthogonal moving frame almost everywhere (away from the
usual suspects like the singular set and the horizons):
>
    e0 = (r^2 + a^2)@/@t + a @/@phi
    e1 = @/@r
    e2 = @/@theta
    e3 = a sin^2(theta) @/@t + @/@phi
>
e2 and e3 are always spacelike while  e0, e1  are always of
the opposite causal character, so  e0  and  e1  span a
Minkowski signature plane, called the principal plane.
>
The  P  I used above denotes the orthogonal projection onto
that plane.
>
BTW, a geodesic is called principal if its tangent vector
lies in the principal plane.
>
EXERCISE. Let  gamma  be a timelike geodesic.  Then:
    K = 0  if and only if  gamma  is a principal in
    the equatorial plane (theta = pi/2).
>

further more, there are too many errors for me to list them all...

>
There are no errors.
>

you finally reached ...kooksville.

>
Talk is cheap.
>
--
Jan

Seems you're trying to figure out
"spaghettification" vis-a-vis "suckage".
One such notion is that of "cube wall".
This is that on one side of the boundary,
the horizon, it's cubic, and space terms,
on the other side gradient, and down.
Then it seems you leave one term out to
skate while building up what first would
have to be  a "square wall", with regards
to the plane tangent the horizon.
Instead it's sort of that they each scale down,
from cube to wall.
The jets that usually result of course are
exactly anti-podal what gets input.
So anyways what that begins to address is
that in the very small or otherwise the very
extreme, that units start exchanging, like
mass and length.  Now these are matters
of projection then as well about singularities,
so most coat-tailing paper-hangers either
pick a normal partial thats deemed to fall out,
blow up the number of dimensions, or assign non-real
interpretations to the values like negative time,
advised as they are that the success of something
like Clebsch-Gordon like what you got there,
in other situations of "what's squoze", functional
freedom, or various inversions in the space.
Instead there's like that in the Planck-ian,
or, at the horizon, is what gets into some
pretty simple notions geometrically, of
this "cube wall", and, "cube spiral".
Now, this involves geometry in the infinitesimal
or as with regards to "infinite shear" and these
kinds of things, so, anyways what you got there
"what's squoze makes something flattened"
instead of "what's squoze is squoze", has that
usual models that result spaghettification after
usual models of what's suckage, either just say
that your patty-cakes can have examples in the
sky survey found where it looks so, and examples
in the sky survey where it don't.
So, you need something like a "cube wall" and
"cube spiral", what you got there is a "patty-cakes".