Special Relativity.

File: 1491078357562.png (172KB, 400x382px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 400x382px

>special relativity
>pick is general relativity

you should leave physics to the big boys, goy.

>>9153856
well, i dont know what R, a, b stand for

>>9153866
>Has terrible grammar and spelling.

I am glad you chose physics instead of English, my friend.

>>9153867

[math]R=R_{ab}g^{ab}[/math] is the ricci scalar, a and b are just indices

>>9153856
>Using SI units formula instead of geometrical one.
Brainlet.

File: edd.jpg (161KB, 747x1120px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 747x1120px

>>9153878

why write it like that when you can write

[math]R^{a} \ _{bac}g^{bc} = R[/math]

File: 14912959479845.png (151KB, 400x382px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 400x382px

>>9153885

why write it like that when you can write

[math]R = g^{bc}\partial_{a}\Gamma^{a} \ _{bc} - g^{bc}\partial_{c}\Gamma^{a} \ _{ba} + g^{bc}\Gamma^{a} \ _{ad}\Gamma^{d} \ _{bc} - g^{bc}\Gamma^{a} \ _{cd}\Gamma^{d} \ _{ba}[/math]

>>9153885
Who is that gu? He has a massive forehead.

File: 14912875830421.jpg (55KB, 403x512px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 403x512px

>>9153894

I have not been entirely correct with the placement of the lower indices on the christoffel symbols, however since spacetime is torsionless and the christoffel symbols are thusly symmetric in their lower indices it is a moot point.

>>9153856
Only one?

The low velocity limit of special relativity is not actually Galilean relativity.

>>9153905

isn't it? in the case where velocity is approaches zero you get the galilean transformation from the lorentz, take the lorentz factor to be 1 and the quantity v/(c^2) to be zero

File: dapper poplawski.png (1MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 750x1334px

>>9153899
>spacetime is torsionless
lol nope

File: 1502469537268.jpg (385KB, 798x1200px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 798x1200px

>>9153953

>pole
>goy

opinion discarded

Brainlet engineer here. Does relativity provide a correct description of gravity? I keep hearing that we still don't have a theory that properly explains it.

>>9153962
relativity gives incorrect predictions at small scales, particle theory gives incorrect predictions at large scales.
the goal would be to have a unified theory that gives predictions at all scales

>>9153905
Taking v << c and using a first order Taylor approximation gives the Galilean transformations.

>>9153873
>Can't make a solid argument so has resort to Ad hominem

>>9153913
>>9153980
The first order Taylor approximation of the low velocity limit v << c of the Lorentz transformations are:

x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t - (v/c^2) x

This differs from the Galilean transformation t' = t

Taking v/c^2 to be zero is a second order approximation.

QM has become more useful faster than Einstein's toy theory.

>>9153856
One flaw of SR? How about it's extremely restrictive assumptions? Like constant velocities, neglecting gravity, instantaneous acceleration, etc.

>>9153990
>can't form a solid sentence
>resorts to gibberish