# Talk:Stationary spacetime

WikiProject Physics / Relativity  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

## Vandalism by 67.40.132.63

This IP address is registered to Qwest Communications International Inc. in Denver, Colorado, and also appears to be geolocated in Denver. ---CH 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

## Students beware

I'm not an expert, and I haven't checked the references yet. . . , but I suspect the ${\displaystyle \omega _{i}}$ mentioned in the first set-off equation is not to be identified with the ${\displaystyle \omega _{\mu }}$ defined in the next paragraph. Following through the definition seems to give a distinct result. Algonkian wanna learn (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Its not. The article uses the "well-known" convention that ${\displaystyle \omega _{i}}$ is three dimensional, while ${\displaystyle \omega _{\mu }}$ is four-dimensional. That is, i=1,2,3 and mu=1,2,3,4. I'm not sure where to say this; it is one of those things that "everyone knows". 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Or are you trying to say that the definition of the twist vector is wrong? Its not just "mentioned", the first equation uses ${\displaystyle \omega _{i}}$ and the paragraphs that follow give it a name: the "twist vector" and define as that anti-symmetric derivative-product of the killing vector. Or maybe you are saying that metrics of that form can also include ${\displaystyle \omega _{i}}$'s that are more general than just twist vectors? Hmm. Maybe. I don't know. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)