9
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/science@lemmy.ml

Edit: The paper is total nonsense. Sorry for wasting people's time.

https://youtu.be/Yk_NjIPaZk4?si=dasxM2Py-s654djW

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pglpm@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's utter bullshit from the very start. First, it isn't true that the Ricci curvature can be written as they do in eqn (1). Second, in eqn (2) the Einstein tensor (middle term) cannot be replaced by the Ricci tensor (right-hand term), unless the Ricci scalar ("R") is zero, which only happens when there's no energy. They nonchalantly do that replacement without even a hint of explanation.

Elsevier and ScienceDirect should feel ashamed. They can go f**k themselves.

[-] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

I do agree the whole paper is bull. Equations (1) and (2) are strictly speaking wrong, but you'd see these kinds of expressions if you are talking informally about these things. (1) should be a Riemann tensor, so its mostly wrong. For (2) it is a bit more general than R=0, since you could have Einsteinian manifolds and can make that redefinition. But yeah, without explaining anything, it's just nonsense.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago
[-] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

On these things I think she could be right, but most of her physics stuff I do not agree with.

this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
9 points (56.3% liked)

Science

13257 readers
127 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS