Timeline for Deriving Friedmann Equations without General Relativity
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9, 2018 at 8:10 | vote | accept | Sumedha Biswas | ||
| Nov 9, 2018 at 7:49 | comment | added | Sumedha Biswas | @Runlikehell Of course it does, I should've been more attentive to it. I'll get to it now and thank you! | |
| Nov 8, 2018 at 23:12 | comment | added | RenatoRenatoRenato | As a side note, I think you should approve the answers given to some of your questions, like the one about the velocity of stars, it may not seem like but it require time and focus to craft a decent answer. | |
| Nov 8, 2018 at 23:04 | answer | added | RenatoRenatoRenato | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 8, 2018 at 22:12 | comment | added | RenatoRenatoRenato | You can find it in Coles and Lucchin textbook called cosmology, Weinberg's cosmology has a derivation in section 1.5 but it wasn't as easy to follow as Coles Lucchin. | |
| Nov 8, 2018 at 21:46 | comment | added | Sumedha Biswas | @BenCrowell Yes, that makes more sense. I edited the question. Any idea about where I could see the rigorous pseudo derivations? | |
| Nov 8, 2018 at 21:44 | history | edited | Sumedha Biswas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Nov 8, 2018 at 21:37 | comment | added | user4552 | I think the word you want is "nonrelativistic," not "classical." Yes, there are nonrelativistic pseudoderivations of this sort of thing, but they're not rigorous. Why would anyone downvote this? This is a perfectly reasonable question. | |
| Nov 8, 2018 at 21:32 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | GR is considered the apogee of classical thinking in the sense that it doesn't use quantum concepts. | |
| Nov 8, 2018 at 21:28 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 54 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Nov 8, 2018 at 21:25 | history | asked | Sumedha Biswas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |