Hi Surender,
I'm supposing that by geodesics in gravitation you don't mean Newtonian gravity but general relativity.
If it is so, I would suggest you
- "Relativity, Gravitation and Cosmology" (Ta-Pei Cheng)
- "Gravitation" (Misner, Thorn and Wheeler)
The first one is recent. The last one is pretty old, but you can find a lot of interesting things in it.
Greetings
Sir i want to know what will be the equation in cone,if we shall determine the distance between two points?
Hi , go through this paper , you will know the real reason of gravity and ultimate idea on cosmology. I prepared that manuscript
Dear Surender,
here's a brief note on Geodesics on a cone.
I hope it will be useful.
Greetings,
Giovanni
Dear Jagadesh,
in my modest opinion, "you will know the real reason of..." it's not a very nice way to present a scientific hypothesis, because it implies that your ideas are already proved by experiments.
I suggest you to call it "a hypothesis on the nature of Gravity" and see if the community accepts this hypothesis. Sometimes one is lead to think that the scientific community doesn't accept ideas that are radically new, but this is not true: if it works, it works and the basic rules for a hypothesis to be analyzed are
- if it is verified by all experiments, then it is accepted
- if it is falsified by experiments, it is discarded as a theory (a theory that doesn't predict or predicts things in a wrong way, is useless and sometimes could be dangerous)
- if it cannot be verified or falsified, it belongs to realm of lucubration.
By now, your hypothesis has to be examined as such and I suggest you to implement some mathematics in your work, because after all I totally agree with Galileo Galilei when he said
"Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes — I mean the universe — but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written. This book is written in the mathematical language" (il Saggiatore)
Dear Giovanni,
I'm just 21 yrs old, and i hope you went through the manuscript i uploaded, the theory and idea i proposed is correct , i understand that it is mathematically is not yet constructed. The maths needed for this theory is not like some imagination in 3D space, we need to imagine time by which we are being able to imagine, a New kind of mathematics. Tensor calculus is not valid, surely i can construct the spacetime equations. I hope you believe my proposal is right that's why you advised me to construct equations. but here you also need to accept that "TIME" is not a extra dimension, but it is a illusive co-operand of 3D space , which stands inconceivable
dear Jagadesh,
I'm sorry but I cannot believe your proposal is right until I see further developments.
Nevertheless, the idea that time is not a dimension appears in other theories and therefore is not to be discarded as a whole. (for instance the question as to "why in classical theory time is an evolution parameter while in General relativity is treated on an equal footing with space" has been posed many times).
The point is that General Relativity by now has made a lot of predictions that turned out to be right, and by now no experiment could falsify it. It is a theory that works. And it is the hardest thing to supersede such an effective theory by undermining one of its pillars.
- Badges
- Science topic