PECE2 book, some questions

1) OK agreed.
2) `Yes and also in Eq. (5.67) (my errors).
3) It should be Eq. (5.55)
4) It should be 1 / 2 – (- 1 / 2), giving a correctly positive resonance energy.
5) OK agreed about units of G.
6) In Note 376(4), Eq. (20), E sub F is defined in the same way, this is Kambe’s definition, so the signs are OK. The sign error was fixed when it was first noticed.
7) OK agreed about x.
8) Eq. (9.95) is the result of the equivalence principle.
9) I would say that this is the two dimensional equivalent of the Coriolis velocity.

Brilliant production and many thanks to all concerned! I urge all Fellows who have not yet made a contribution to costs to donate what they can, however much or little they can afford. After all this book is a showcase for our work and is already a “best seller”. Many thanks again to those who have already donated generously. This is a traditional subscription method, as for example used for Farnz Schubert by his friends, who were well aware of his genius. Schubert never had anything, materially, not even a piano, and died in a cold, damp room just short of his 32nd birthday after having produced a thousand works, and after having changed the face of music. His estate consisted of his clothes and few small possessions. His legacy in cultural terms is priceless. Many thanks in anticipation! Finally I have a a telephone number for Steve Crothers which I will forward in confidence. I think that he is working on his part now and has generously contributed to costs. I will be glad to write a short preface, which will include an extract from “Schubert’s Dream”, a piece of prose written in 1823.

Sent: 09/05/2017 21:20:45 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: PECE2 book, some questions

I have the following comments/questions:

text before eq.(3.2): I changed the text to “two form”: ok?
the Hodge dual of an antisymmetric tensor or tensor
valued two form of differential geometry is another antisymmetric tensor or
vector valued two form.

Eq.(5.53): should it read bold W instead of bold A ?

Text before (5.56): the reference to Eq. (5.21) seems not to be correct.

Eq.(6.48): is there really meant a sum -1/2 -1/2 in the parentheses?
Also the sign of the formula has to be checked.

Eq.(7.79): I corrected the units of G.

Eqs.(8.147, 8.150, 8.156): some time we had a sign error in some notes.
Possibly w and v have to be interchanged (or the sign changed).

Eq.(8.217): x has to be defined inversely, see Eq.(32) of UFT 351.

Eq.(9.95): The rhs looks strange. Could be a very special case. (9.98)
is the same equation.

Text before (9.208): This seems not to be the Coriolis velocity. That
would require three dimensions.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: