Talk:Gödel metric

message: Planned improvements:
*alternative physical interpretations:
*# anti-stiff fluid
*# dust plus Lambda
*# minimally coupled massless scalar field plus Lambda
*cylindrical chart (see Hawking & Ellis)
*frame describing physical experience of particles whose world lines are closed timelike curves
*at least one derivation
*even more bizarre quotient manifolds
*larger families including Gödel and some other "rotating cosmological models".
I'll need some time to work this out since I know almost too much and might need to play around to strike the right balance, and perhaps spread some of this material over two or more articles.
Right now part of the discussion of physical properties only makes sense in another chart; I plan to fix this later today.---CH  (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for underconstruction flag

message: ... without finishing the job.  My recent work in preparing this article was prompted by my recent rediscovery of this solution in yet another chart (I have rediscovered the Gödel lambdadust a half dozen times in different coordinate charts), which is certainly simpler than others I've seen, but unforunately turned out to be rather misleading in terms of physical interpretation. In the course of sorting that out (never an easy task), I rediscovered a somewhat silly but also rather serious error which I noticed years ago (and had forgotten about) in the otherwise lovely figure in Hawking and Ellis (see note in the citation).  My derivation of the claims made in the article has the advantage of being correct, but currently is too long and complicated to be included in the encyclopedia.  Also, as often happens, preparing good figures (showing the appearance of the light cones) turned out to be a frustrating exercise in wrestling with limitations of maple graphical routines, and I'm not happy with the appearance of what I've produced thus far. 
So I decided to declare this article as finished as anything ever is around here.---CH  (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the criticism of Hawking and Ellis, but CH  left a couple sentences in the article which say the same thing. I have just removed them. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for removing underconstruction flag... 

message: I extensively rewrote the Sept 2005 original version of this article and had been monitoring it for bad edits, but
I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive.  I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions.  I hope for the best, but caution that this article is likely to attract future edits promoting personal points of view regarding so-called Mach principles, which is a perennially controversial topic in gravitation physics.  Unfortunately, in the past, some WP editors have attempted to portray idiosyncratic personal views as if they belong to the canon of established mainstream scientific belief, which is unlikely to be accurate.
Good luck to all students in your search for information, regardless!---CH 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Students beware

message: It is mentioned "We'll mention just one feature.",  I believe this personalized non-neutral tone does not belong in a written encyclopedic article.
72.10.128.60 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "We'll mention just one feature."

message: "It is obvious from the generators just given that the slices admit a transitive abelian three dimensional transformation group, so a quotient of the solution can be reinterpreted as a stationary cylindrically symmetric solution."
You mean to the experienced eye of someone immersed in the subject at glance from the window of a speeding car?  And they wonder why scientists get a bad rap. At least put a reference link on "obvious".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.29.81 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 October 2012‎
To start the article with "This solution has many strange properties..." and then repeatedly say "as we would expect" or "it is obvious" is odd.  Even for people familiar with the math, clearly this solution has unexpected properties and is not obvious.  It comes across as quite silly to describe a very strange solution with that sort of language over and over.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.132.76.21 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is obvious..  

message: It would be nice if someone could provide the transformation between the original chart of Gödel and the cylindrical chart. Also the formulas for the path of light. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The two coordinate charts