I Coordinate and proper time, null geodesic

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between coordinate time and proper time for null geodesics and timelike observers in a spacetime metric. It clarifies that proper time is defined for timelike paths, while null geodesics do not have a proper time since the interval is zero along such paths. The original question asks about the behavior of proper time and coordinate time as a null geodesic approaches infinity, leading to confusion about the definitions and context. Participants emphasize the need for clarity regarding the observer's frame and the metrics involved in the calculations. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of interpreting geodesics in general relativity, particularly when distinguishing between null and timelike trajectories.
  • #31
binbagsss said:
Does anyone really post on a forum expecting a yes or no answer ? No you expect discussion? Or what the hell are you going to learn ?

Well, if you posted to generate discussion, that's fine. There was quite a bit of discussion about the topic, so you should be happy. But then you complained that nobody answered your question, which makes it sound like you had a specific question you wanted an answer to. Nobody knows what that question is.

You're unsatisfied with the answers you have been given, but nobody knows why, and you can't tell them.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
stevendaryl said:
Well, if you posted to generate discussion, that's fine. There was quite a bit of discussion about the topic, so you should be happy. But then you complained that nobody answered your question, which makes it sound like you had a specific question you wanted an answer to. Nobody knows what that question is.

You're unsatisfied with the answers you have been given, but nobody knows why, and you can't tell them.

i complained because people went astray and decided to state their general knowledge, not consise with what I had questioned, and then someone complained about me not having the background knowledge of such posts, when I hadnt asked for it !
 
  • #33
binbagsss said:
and then someone complained about me not having the background knowledge of such posts, when I hadnt asked for it !

When a question is asked a back-and-forth discussion almost always follows. Sometimes the discussion goes over my head and I have to just gean what I can from it and try to learn more about it if I'm interested. Education, formal or otherwise, is much more than learning how to answer questions. It involves understanding.
 
  • #34
Mister T said:
When a question is asked a back-and-forth discussion almost always follows. Sometimes the discussion goes over my head and I have to just gean what I can from it and try to learn more about it if I'm interested. Education, formal or otherwise, is much more than learning how to answer questions. It involves understanding.
yes, fair enough if you had pointed towards that, but at no point did ii point towards killing vector fields. what followed was someone merrily tapping away at their keyboard banging on about killing vector fields, and then a post asking ME where is my background knowledge !
 
  • #35
binbagsss said:
i complained because people went astray

There is no way that the discussion can "go astray" if there isn't a specific question to answer. So it seems to me that either you ask a specific question (and then you can complain if nobody answers it) or you can spark a general discussion, and then let it go where it will. There is no basis for complaint in the latter case.
 
  • #36
stevendaryl said:
There is no way that the discussion can "go astray" if there isn't a specific question to answer. So it seems to me that either you ask a specific question (and then you can complain if nobody answers it) or you can spark a general discussion, and then let it go where it will. There is no basis for complaint in the latter case.
erm nah. i don't think the world revolves around me. rather, if you think a discussion may be useful by taking a de-tour, you should mildly talk about the subject, or introduce it, and ask whether that person has the background knowledge for it or not, before ASSUMING they DO NOT, writing an essay about ut and getting your knickers in a twist about the fact that they don't
 
  • #37
binbagsss said:
erm nah. i don't think the world revolves around me.

Your complaints seem to suggest otherwise. You're upset that people didn't spend more time figuring out what you want from this discussion and complying with it.
 
  • #38
stevendaryl said:
Your complaints seem to suggest otherwise. You're upset that people didn't spend more time figuring out what you want from this discussion and complying with it.
u really want me to repeat myself?
no i am not.
the fact that it was complained why don't i have some desired background knowledge, when i asked nothing about it, and it was immediately assumed i did not have it.
i think you've got that, you just don't like loosing arguements.
 
  • #39
binbagsss said:
u really want me to repeat myself?

No. I told you what I want. I either want you to ask a specific question, or else let the discussion go where it will, without complaining.

Nobody has any idea what you want out of this discussion.
 
  • #40
stevendaryl said:
No. I told you what I want. I either want you to ask a specific question, or else let the discussion go where it will, without complaining.

Nobody has any idea what you want out of this discussion.
i believe they do about 6 posts ago, you can't let it go since felt the need to reply to my clarificaiton posts which i was asked for.
 
  • #41
binbagsss said:
The question comes from an exam paper from my university in the UK...
Presumably from a module on general relativity. What was, if there was one, the recommended text(s)?
 
  • #42
binbagsss said:
i believe they do about 6 posts ago, you can't let it go since felt the need to reply to my clarificaiton posts which i was asked for.

Okay. I'm dropping this discussion. Maybe we could take vote: Does anybody know what the question is?
 
Last edited:
  • #43
binbagsss said:
i believe they do about 6 posts ago

Oh, you mean your questions are all resolved now? Good, then we can stop the pointless wrangling about who understands what. Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
465
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K