Just a placeholderand anotherH1H2H3H4H5H6Just regular textA linkV(\mathbf{x})=-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\frac{G\rho (\mathbf{r})}{\left|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r} \right|}dv(\mathbf{r})V(\mathbf{x})=-\int_{\Omega }\frac{G\rho (\mathbf{r})}{\left|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r} \right|}dv(\mathbf{r})
We ended the second article in this series with the audacious claim that we have obtained the METRIC.1 Quite frankly, I expected to hear a howl of protest to my brazen assertion that we had actually gotten so far. We certainly hadn't obtained anything quite like the usual matrix or tensor form of a metric, or even a "line element", nor had we seen how this has any relationship to the usual "strangeness" of the Special Theory of Relativity.It is the issues/questions of the metric, its relationship to the inner or dot product, and what forms it
Since "spacetime" is simply a term for a space that has a component we call "time", we need only concentrate on spaces in a somewhat general sense. Now, as Derek Potter, on this site, pointed out to me, a little while ago, "To us, a space is somewhere to put a box :)" So, let's take a short "detour" to address what we will mean by a space, in this series.
Many people struggle with, and even rail against, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. The way it is usually taught or presented often seems to make it appear to be ever so complex, far too abstract and opaque, and even downright "hokey".* My experience certainly allows me full empathy for such struggles.However, through my journey through these struggles, I did find the kernel, the "missing piece", even the "gem", so to speak, behind the theory. I suspect that this kernel may be what is missing in the understanding of those that struggle with, or, maybe, even rail against, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. I know I could have easily fallen into this category.
