Lagu2
To Editor Lagu2
editI may be wrong, but I suspect that you are pro-relativity with a perhaps not entirely conventional approach, and that you have a particular interest in general relativity. So despite the fact that you are essentially saying the same thing as me regarding polar coordinates, that on more important issues we are perhaps diametrically opposed.
This is nevertheless interesting, because recently I discovered that my favoured approach to centrifugal force is in fact the approach that was first formulated by Leibniz. I have also heard it suggested that Einstein had two faces, and that his 'behind the scenes' face very much corresponded to that of Leibniz, whereas his public face was that of his theories of relativity.
I have also corresponded with people over the years who have been opposed to special relativity but in favour of general relativity. And I have also heard it suggested that general relativity can become a perfect theory if we take the special relativity virus out of it. I don't know what your views are on all of this, but I suspect that you are in favour of general relativity, or perhaps some variation of it. I can certainly see a link between general relativity and hydrodynamics, but I am of the school of thought that would want to totally purge it all of STR before taking it seriously. I am a believer in the fact that centrifugal force is a pure hydrodynamical force. And that may be the reason for the common ground between us as regards the preference for polar coordinates which are not related to rotating frames. Some editor last autumn who used a 63 IP server took a 'sit on the fence' approach between myself and the crowd, claiming that while I was anti-relativity, and wrong for being so, that my approach to centrifugal force tied in better with the relativistic approach, whereas the crowd, who are pro-relativity, had got it all wrong as far as centrifugal force was concerned. This 63 IP served made the comment that this distinguishes the half wits from the half wise.
Some say that Einstein was working behind the scenes in his later years on Leibniz and Boscovich. If you and Timothy Rias feel that this article needs to have a section on general relativistic centrifugal force, I would not oppose the inclusion of such a section, providing that it came below the polar coordinates and classical planetary orbital sections (which haven't been written yet). I doubt very much if I would agree with the contents, but I certainly wouldn't delete it, and I would read it with great interest. If you do so, please don't make it too mathematical because I never could grasp tensors. David Tombe (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)