Talk:Frame fields in general relativity

message: Hi CH. Just a niggly point: I thought 'tetrad' meant a basis for the tangent space at some point. In the article, it's used synonymously with 'frame field'. I would prefer to use 'tetrad field' instead of 'tetrad' in the article. When restricting discussions at a particular point, 'tetrad' should be used. I think we're just using different terminology (and dare I say it, one of us - probably me - is perhaps a little loose in using the standard terminology for 'tetrad', if there is a standard). ---Mpatel  (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I agree that it makes sense to say "frame field" for frames covering some neighborhood (specified) the first time we mention one, and "frame" thereafter, and in general to always clarify the first time we use "frame" or "tetrad".---CH  (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I created the original version of this article, which concerns a topic particularly dear to my heart, and I 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, although I hope for the best.
Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Students beware

message: should it not be fo that bends inwards not eo. The former is the Lemaitre inertial observer, the latter is the accelerating static non-inertial observer standing still in curved spacetime.
:Please clarify and sign your posts. --Michael C. Price talk 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math typo? 

message: Looking at this article, and looking at the article Cartan formalism, it seems clear that some work is needed to align these articles, modernize notation, and build a bridge to the concept of a frame bundle and a spin connection.   This particular article should probably be renamed to orthonormal tetrad formalism, because that seems to be the general intent of it. It would also do with an even simpler introduction, articulate the properties of tetrads more generally, and then also go a bit farther, to clarify coordinate-free notation, with tetrads as sections of a frame bundle, and the gauge invariance of tetrads (the so-called "displacement gauge invariance" portion of general relativistic invariance). Exhibiting this gauge invariance would be nice, as currently, the spin connection article isn't insightful, either physically or mathematically. The article on the Cartan formalism seems to deal with the generic n-dimensional case, and also the non-orthonormal case, and that's fine, except that there's some fair amount of overlap of subject matter. The article on the Cartan formalism tackles the generic (m,n)-dimensional case, again, overlapping in content. All three articles would benefit from a refresh... I have no clue why I'm bothering to say this, or who I expect to act on this. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I also suggest merging the tetrad formalism article and this page. 193.82.242.39 (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The tetrad formalism is just a redirect to Cartan formalism. It deals with the general n-dimensional case, and never mentions general relativity. So, shouldn't merge. Also, both articles are already long. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernization needed 

message: The section called Lemaître observers in this article does not appear to be correct. Eyeballing the frame fields given there, they just seem to be wrong, but I have not rigorously double-checked. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemaître observers