Changes

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)

Revision as of 22:12, August 2, 2010

360 bytes added , 22:12, August 2, 2010

→‎Curl of the gravitaional field: Your definition is too narrow when discussing the theory of relativity, which describes the framework in which the force operates. To be meaningful, the definitio

Line 412: Line 412:

:::::::: By a conservative field, I mean a vector field on space for which there exists a scalar function V with the gradient of V given by that vector field. This doesn't imply the path-independence of any physical quantities other than V itself. If you this view as too narrow, can you tell me what you take to be the definition of a conservative field? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:57, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

+

::::::::: Your definition is too narrow when discussing the theory of relativity, which describes the framework in which the force operates. To be meaningful, the definition must be broader. It must ensure the path independence of the scalar, as well as other scalars independent of that scalar.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Aschlafly

Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators

126,262

edits