SkipCaptcha
710
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 94:
Line 94: + +
Talk:General theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 02:42, November 15, 2009
, 02:42, November 15, 2009no edit summary
[[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:32, 14 November 2009 (EST)
[[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:32, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:These suggestions sounds good to me -- I don't think the two approaches are mutually exclusive, either. I can start off talking about "flat coordinate systems" and maybe even throw in something about map projections (the Mercator kind, I mean) and the theorema egregium (this is supposed to be written for [[Majoring in Mathematics]] anyway, though JacobB who suggested it seems to have disappeared). This can all be integrated with what I'll say about surfaces in R^3. I'm a bit wary of saying much about Christoffel symbols since then we'd have to say a bit about connections, which I'd rather avoid -- I think geodesics are a more intuitive thing, and require a lot less other stuff to define if we're willing to wave our hands a bit (but if they're needed for the relativity article I can certainly define). Then I can start babbling about parallel transport and then actually define the curvature tensor. It's probably better if one of you write the physics-y stuff about fictitious forces here, but I can take a shot at it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:42, 14 November 2009 (EST)