Roberto Pavani's latest activity

Einstein rather said: with respect to anything

Agreed. My wording was imprecise, I meant that there is no preferred (privileged) reference frame.

Thanks, this is the right kind of reply, and the fence is exactly where it should be. As an identity it is already implicit in Foot...

Reply to Roberto Pavani's question of 22 May, which as far as I can tell was left open: “has anyone explored the isoclinic decomposition...

Just keep in mind that charge conservation doesn't hold in such a universe, and since it follows from Maxwell's equations, you'd have to...

In empty space, from Maxwell: light speed =c, Respect to what? -> Einstein said respect to nothing -> SR

Undergraduate answer: There are two different "c"s. One is just a unit conversion between space and time, its numerical value...

For myself, I find Newtonian dynamics interesting even though it's 300+ years old and "superseded" by GR. And the same for Maxwell's...

It is said that two particles (e.g. two photons) with the same quantum numbers are indistinguishable, particles carry no label. So...

Here is a GA T-shirt with Maxwell's equation: https://bivector.net/merch.html#!/Maxwell-longsleeve/p/310027141

Agreed, I was imprecise, I left the boundary conditions implicit. With a single mass and asymptotic flatness (metric → Minkowski at...

Almost. We also have to specify the boundary conditions. Only with the mass distribution and the boundary conditions is the answer...

Depends on what one means by "reason why". Try this analogy: The rate at which an odometer reading increases is not directly affected...

I'd put it this way: the question "where was Feynman wrong?" isn't well-defined, because there's no single "the" explanation of the twin...

I think it's simple: do we want to keep GR, or not? If we keep GR, the answer is unique, change the mass distribution, solve...