 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » GR -> Schwarzschild Metric -> Black Holes... |
|
Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Koobee Wublee... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote:
[quote]Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*:[3]
"Sagittarius A* has a mass estimated at 4.31 ±0.06 million
solar masses Given that this mass is confined inside a
44 million km diameter sphere, this yields a density ten
times higher than previous estimates. While, strictly speaking,
there are other mass configurations that would explain the
measured mass and size, such an arrangement would collapse
into a single supermassive black hole on a timescale much
shorter than the life of the Milky Way."
So, in reality, there may be no mass in a Black Hole at all...
ONLY a mathematical reflection/facsimile thereof. Even the
polar jets and the occasional "feeding frenzy" of a Black Hole
can be explained by Classical Mechanics of the Barycenter
as events and effect of the Left or Right Hand rules for the
former and by collisions of stars or particles for the latter....
It reminds me of D'Alembert and Einstein: "The math says that
"it" is there, but if you actually go there, then there is no such
thing to be found and touched"... except in the agile mind of
Einstein's Dingleberries and mathematicians who do believe
that the real world does reside within their own mind...
ahahahaha....
My guess that Black Holes are just n-body manifestations,
instead of being the exotic specimens that the heuristic paradigm
believes them to be, it is not a terribly original concept.
So, does anyone know who has already worked on this
aspect of the issue?
[/quote]
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
There are infinite such solutions. Please allow me to present the
history once again based on bits and pieces of information with
forensic evidences lying within the very mathematics involved.
During the middle to latter half of the 19th century, Christoffel
recognized that an object moving in curved space might do so in the
shortest possible local distance but not necessarily the shortest as
observed by an outsider. In doing so, he was able to derive the
geodesic equations based on this concept. However, there are two ways
to group the so-called connection coefficients. Christoffel must have
known about the other but chose to publish the more symmetric form now
called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind. These two
groupings of connection coefficients result in the same set of
geodesic equations. However, they are not the same. They are only
the same when the metric is diagonal.
Then, towards the end of the 19th century came this math alchemist
named Ricci. Single handily he invented the Riemannian geometry which
has nothing to do with Riemann. Noticing the geodesic equations can
be written to equation to zero if an operator is able to operate on
the velocity, Ricci the alchemist came up with a mathematical operator
called the covariant derivative out of the Christoffel symbols.
Apparently, he never realized there is another way to group the
connection coefficients. By taking the double covariant derivatives
of two adjacent points in space or spacetime and setting to null, he
also faced with several possibilities in grouping the connect
coefficients. Just like Christoffel, he chose only one and discarded
the rest. His chosen one became what is now called the Riemann
curvature tensor.
The Riemann tensor is actual an n-by-n-by-n-by-n matrix with n^4
elements. It appeared to be a dead end until (I think it was) his
student Levi-Civita came along and invented the Ricci curvature tensor
by contracting the Riemann curvature tensor into an n-by-n matrix with
only n^2 elements.
The nature of the Ricci tensor being cooked out of alchemists’ pot
seemed not to have stopped there. It was Nordstrom who realized the
Ricci tensor can somehow mimic the Laplace equation describing
Newtonian gravity in vacuum. The solutions of the Ricci tensor, where
each element describes a partial differential equation, are each
element in the metric.
However, the Ricci tensor cannot satisfy the more general case of the
Poisson equation. It was Hilbert who modified Ricci’s mathematics to
come up with the field equations which include the Ricci tensor itself
plus the so-called trace terms to satisfy the Poisson equation.
Believe it or not. The field equations are never tested. All
predictions are based on Nordstrom’s null Ricci tensor (in vacuum)
since the field equations degenerate into the Ricci tensor in vacuum.
There are actually some subtle mathematical faults leading to the
field equations, but if a diagonal metric is involved such as all test
have done, these mathematical faults become insignificant.
Merely a few months after the publication of the field equations,
Schwarzschild came up with the first solution. After all, he had
several years to play with the null Ricci tensor. So, the feat may
not be as extraordinary as one thinks. Using the linearly rectangular
coordinate system (Euclidean) in curved space or spacetime actually
yields a non-diagonal metric. This would result in ungodly complexity
in the mathematics of solving the null Ricci tensor. However, by
transforming to the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate
system, it allowed him to work with a diagonal metric which would
drastically simplify the mathematics in the null Ricci tensor.
Further reduction in complexity can be achieved by choosing another
set of coordinate system that yields a determinant of -1. So,
methodically did he transform the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system into another that would result in much simpler Ricci
tensor thus simpler partial differential equations. Schwarzschild’s
original solution in the transformed coordinate system somewhat
resembled the Schwarzschild metric. However, remember that he had to
transform it back into the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system, Schwarzschild’s original solution does not manifest
black holes.
Now, follow the reasoning of the principle of invariance. A geometry
should be something independent of any observers, right? This is the
case because no mortal observer can play God Himself. A segment in
coordinate displacement does not describe the geometry. You have to
specify the metric to do so. Naturally, the metric is going to be
different in each chosen coordinate system to describe the very
invariant same geometry. It is also impossible to tell what the
geometry without identifying what coordinate system is employed. Any
elementary school children should have no trouble understanding the
relationship among the geometry, the coordinate system, and the
metric. However, the saddest part is that the self-styled physicists
do not. Their so-called Riemannian geometry equates the metric with
the geometry and tossed away the coordinate system. That should be
embarrassingly fvcking stupid of them. All but Hilbert understood
what is understood by elementary school children.
A year or two later, it was Hilbert who realized that there are indeed
an infinite solutions to the field equations and presented the
Schwarzschild metric which predicts black holes. Realizing the whole
thing was total crap, he walked away and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar to claim full credit. Needless to say
that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had absolutely
nothing to do with the nonsense of GR from the very beginning to the
very end. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar should be
a total embarrassment to science.
On top of that, a black hole predicted by the Schwarzschild metric can
only form in an observer’s very infinite future. Thus, to us, there
should be no black holes formed yet. So, claiming to have identified
black holes is like claiming to see Elvis alive. <shrug>
I am still amazed that the self-styled physicists would collectively
got themselves into such embarrassing mess. Your truly has done
enough work in merely a few years that all the self-styled physicists
combined cannot have done in the past 100 years. The whole thing
about GR is utterly total nonsense. Well, and SR too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:57 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3566
|
On Oct 30, 3:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote:
Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*:[3]
"Sagittarius A* has a mass estimated at 4.31 ±0.06 million
solar masses Given that this mass is confined inside a
44 million km diameter sphere, this yields a density ten
times higher than previous estimates. While, strictly speaking,
there are other mass configurations that would explain the
measured mass and size, such an arrangement would collapse
into a single supermassive black hole on a timescale much
shorter than the life of the Milky Way."
So, in reality, there may be no mass in a Black Hole at all...
ONLY a mathematical reflection/facsimile thereof. Even the
polar jets and the occasional "feeding frenzy" of a Black Hole
can be explained by Classical Mechanics of the Barycenter
as events and effect of the Left or Right Hand rules for the
former and by collisions of stars or particles for the latter....
It reminds me of D'Alembert and Einstein: "The math says that
"it" is there, but if you actually go there, then there is no such
thing to be found and touched"... except in the agile mind of
Einstein's Dingleberries and mathematicians who do believe
that the real world does reside within their own mind...
ahahahaha....
My guess that Black Holes are just n-body manifestations,
instead of being the exotic specimens that the heuristic paradigm
believes them to be, it is not a terribly original concept.
So, does anyone know who has already worked on this
aspect of the issue?
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
There are infinite such solutions. Please allow me to present the
history once again based on bits and pieces of information with
forensic evidences lying within the very mathematics involved.
During the middle to latter half of the 19th century, Christoffel
recognized that an object moving in curved space might do so in the
shortest possible local distance but not necessarily the shortest as
observed by an outsider. In doing so, he was able to derive the
geodesic equations based on this concept. However, there are two ways
to group the so-called connection coefficients. Christoffel must have
known about the other but chose to publish the more symmetric form now
called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind. These two
groupings of connection coefficients result in the same set of
geodesic equations. However, they are not the same. They are only
the same when the metric is diagonal.
Then, towards the end of the 19th century came this math alchemist
named Ricci. Single handily he invented the Riemannian geometry which
has nothing to do with Riemann. Noticing the geodesic equations can
be written to equation to zero if an operator is able to operate on
the velocity, Ricci the alchemist came up with a mathematical operator
called the covariant derivative out of the Christoffel symbols.
Apparently, he never realized there is another way to group the
connection coefficients. By taking the double covariant derivatives
of two adjacent points in space or spacetime and setting to null, he
also faced with several possibilities in grouping the connect
coefficients. Just like Christoffel, he chose only one and discarded
the rest. His chosen one became what is now called the Riemann
curvature tensor.
The Riemann tensor is actual an n-by-n-by-n-by-n matrix with n^4
elements. It appeared to be a dead end until (I think it was) his
student Levi-Civita came along and invented the Ricci curvature tensor
by contracting the Riemann curvature tensor into an n-by-n matrix with
only n^2 elements.
The nature of the Ricci tensor being cooked out of alchemists’ pot
seemed not to have stopped there. It was Nordstrom who realized the
Ricci tensor can somehow mimic the Laplace equation describing
Newtonian gravity in vacuum. The solutions of the Ricci tensor, where
each element describes a partial differential equation, are each
element in the metric.
However, the Ricci tensor cannot satisfy the more general case of the
Poisson equation. It was Hilbert who modified Ricci’s mathematics to
come up with the field equations which include the Ricci tensor itself
plus the so-called trace terms to satisfy the Poisson equation.
Believe it or not. The field equations are never tested. All
predictions are based on Nordstrom’s null Ricci tensor (in vacuum)
since the field equations degenerate into the Ricci tensor in vacuum.
There are actually some subtle mathematical faults leading to the
field equations, but if a diagonal metric is involved such as all test
have done, these mathematical faults become insignificant.
Merely a few months after the publication of the field equations,
Schwarzschild came up with the first solution. After all, he had
several years to play with the null Ricci tensor. So, the feat may
not be as extraordinary as one thinks. Using the linearly rectangular
coordinate system (Euclidean) in curved space or spacetime actually
yields a non-diagonal metric. This would result in ungodly complexity
in the mathematics of solving the null Ricci tensor. However, by
transforming to the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate
system, it allowed him to work with a diagonal metric which would
drastically simplify the mathematics in the null Ricci tensor.
Further reduction in complexity can be achieved by choosing another
set of coordinate system that yields a determinant of -1. So,
methodically did he transform the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system into another that would result in much simpler Ricci
tensor thus simpler partial differential equations. Schwarzschild’s
original solution in the transformed coordinate system somewhat
resembled the Schwarzschild metric. However, remember that he had to
transform it back into the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system, Schwarzschild’s original solution does not manifest
black holes.
Now, follow the reasoning of the principle of invariance. A geometry
should be something independent of any observers, right? This is the
case because no mortal observer can play God Himself. A segment in
coordinate displacement does not describe the geometry. You have to
specify the metric to do so. Naturally, the metric is going to be
different in each chosen coordinate system to describe the very
invariant same geometry. It is also impossible to tell what the
geometry without identifying what coordinate system is employed. Any
elementary school children should have no trouble understanding the
relationship among the geometry, the coordinate system, and the
metric. However, the saddest part is that the self-styled physicists
do not. Their so-called Riemannian geometry equates the metric with
the geometry and tossed away the coordinate system. That should be
embarrassingly fvcking stupid of them. All but Hilbert understood
what is understood by elementary school children.
A year or two later, it was Hilbert who realized that there are indeed
an infinite solutions to the field equations and presented the
Schwarzschild metric which predicts black holes. Realizing the whole
thing was total crap, he walked away and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar to claim full credit. Needless to say
that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had absolutely
nothing to do with the nonsense of GR from the very beginning to the
very end. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar should be
a total embarrassment to science.
On top of that, a black hole predicted by the Schwarzschild metric can
only form in an observer’s very infinite future. Thus, to us, there
should be no black holes formed yet. So, claiming to have identified
black holes is like claiming to see Elvis alive. <shrug
I am still amazed that the self-styled physicists would collectively
got themselves into such embarrassing mess. Your truly has done
enough work in merely a few years that all the self-styled physicists
combined cannot have done in the past 100 years. The whole thing
about GR is utterly total nonsense. Well, and SR too.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
There is already disproof for black holes. Pound Rebka predicts black
holes will blueshift incomming light infinitely. The infinite energy
of light prediction for a black hole at its boundary is the disproof.
Falling in the aether is always below light speed. Which means; it
needs to be pointed out; limited gravity/speed theory is the extreme
of gravity and we are not seeing black holes but instead something
else.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[...]
[quote]You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
[/quote]
I wonder how you define a physicist. Is it someone who sits in a chair and
insults from the comfort of his armchair under the protection of a
pseudonym?
[quote]
Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
[/quote]
And Kerr-Newman, and Reisser-Nordstom, and the Hawking singularity theorems,
and every computer simulation of a collapsing dust scenario.
[quote]There are infinite such solutions.
[/quote]
And once again we run smack dab into your inability to understand what an
isomorphism is, or what tensor equations are. Or even the basic concept of
the tensor, for that matter.
[quote]Please allow me to present the
history once again based on bits and pieces of information with
forensic evidences lying within the very mathematics involved.
[/quote]
*smirk*
[quote]
During the middle to latter half of the 19th century, Christoffel
recognized that an object moving in curved space might do so in the
shortest possible local distance but not necessarily the shortest as
observed by an outsider. In doing so, he was able to derive the
geodesic equations based on this concept. However, there are two ways
to group the so-called connection coefficients.
[/quote]
And you have written them, and I have shown you that they are equivalent.
And by shown, I mean I used mathematics as opposed to arguments to
nonexistent authority and shrugs.
[quote]Christoffel must have
known about the other but chose to publish the more symmetric form now
called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind.
[/quote]
Non-symmetric connections result from nonzero torsion, an assumption
contrary to Riemannian geometry which results in Einstein-Cartan theory. I
have explained this to you before.
[quote]These two
groupings of connection coefficients result in the same set of
geodesic equations. However, they are not the same. They are only
the same when the metric is diagonal.
[/quote]
I've noticed you like to make the assumption of a diagonal metric, given how
many of your stupid little arguments you base that assumption on.
[quote]
Then, towards the end of the 19th century came this math alchemist
[/quote]
LOL at (no spam) "math alchemist"
[quote]named Ricci. Single handily he invented the Riemannian geometry which
has nothing to do with Riemann.
[/quote]
Which is why its' named after Ricci. Oh wait it isn't.
[quote]Noticing the geodesic equations can
be written to equation to zero if an operator is able to operate on
the velocity, Ricci the alchemist came up with a mathematical operator
called the covariant derivative out of the Christoffel symbols.
[/quote]
I'm sure this made sense in your addled mind.
[quote]Apparently, he never realized there is another way to group the
connection coefficients.
[/quote]
Apparently? I wonder how you think you know this stuff.
Did you read the original publications? No, otherwise you would have cited
them once in the last 5 years.
Did you read published correspondence between these people? No, for the same
reason as above.
[quote]By taking the double covariant derivatives
of two adjacent points in space or spacetime and setting to null, he
[/quote]
Oh it is soooo obvious that you have no real training in the subject given
how you say things like "setting to null" while refusing to adjust your
terminology.
[quote]also faced with several possibilities in grouping the connect
coefficients. Just like Christoffel, he chose only one and discarded
the rest. His chosen one became what is now called the Riemann
curvature tensor.
[/quote]
Oh, this is familiar. Remember how you asserted the alternate definitions
were different and I showed you that they are, in fact, the same up to a
sign change?
[quote]
The Riemann tensor is actual an n-by-n-by-n-by-n matrix with n^4
elements.
[/quote]
Hey look! Someone /still/ doesn't know the difference between a matrix and a
tensor!
[quote]It appeared to be a dead end until (I think it was) his
[/quote]
You think? Why don't you refer to your nonexistent source material so you
can be more certain while you are making shit up?
[quote]student Levi-Civita came along and invented the Ricci curvature tensor
by contracting the Riemann curvature tensor into an n-by-n matrix with
only n^2 elements.
[/quote]
Do you even know what the contraction operation is? Do you?
[quote]
The nature of the Ricci tensor being cooked out of alchemists? pot
seemed not to have stopped there.
[/quote]
Oh yes, the farce of 19th century mathematics gained so much inertia that it
steamrolled eeeeeeeverything! Thank god we have a person with no
credibility, no sources, and a disgusting personality to set the record
straight. Or at least straight-ish.
[quote]It was Nordstrom who realized the
Ricci tensor can somehow mimic the Laplace equation describing
Newtonian gravity in vacuum.
[/quote]
Wow that's specific. "Somehow" ?
Do you have a reference for this, or are you just making it up? Aw who am I
kidding, of course you are making it up!
[quote]The solutions of the Ricci tensor, where
each element describes a partial differential equation, are each
element in the metric.
[/quote]
Which you couldn't solve if your life depended on it.
[quote]
However, the Ricci tensor cannot satisfy the more general case of the
Poisson equation.
[/quote]
That's because Poisson's equation is a scalar equation, while a tensor is a
TENSOR you goddamn jackass.
[quote]It was Hilbert who modified Ricci?s mathematics to
come up with the field equations which include the Ricci tensor itself
plus the so-called trace terms to satisfy the Poisson equation.
[/quote]
Note the emphasis on "so-called". The skepticism is expected given your
inability to comprehend the trace term, what it means, why its' there, or
how to calculate it.
The butchering of history is amusing and completely contrary to published
facts. Are you sole sourcing from Bjerknes on this, or are you freerolling
your drivel?
[quote]
Believe it or not.
[/quote]
Nobody but you and people with specific agendas do.
[quote]The field equations are never tested. All
[/quote]
I wonder what you would consider a test of the field equations. I also
wonder how you'd even know, given your inability to derive the field
equations, or reduce the field equations to a solution.
[quote]predictions are based on Nordstrom?s null Ricci tensor (in vacuum)
since the field equations degenerate into the Ricci tensor in vacuum.
There are actually some subtle mathematical faults leading to the
field equations
[/quote]
Well when you butcher the derivation repeatedly, its' easy to understand why
you'd think there are faults.
[quote], but if a diagonal metric is involved such as all test
have done, these mathematical faults become insignificant.
[/quote]
There's that odd little fixation on diagonal metrics again.
[quote]
Merely a few months after the publication of the field equations,
Schwarzschild came up with the first solution. After all, he had
several years to play with the null Ricci tensor. So, the feat may
not be as extraordinary as one thinks.
[/quote]
It is extraordinary enough, considering you can't understand the solution
with a GPS device, sherpa, forged trail, and a compass to guide you.
[quote]Using the linearly rectangular
coordinate system (Euclidean) in curved space
[/quote]
Euclid is flat, dipshit.
[quote]or spacetime actually
yields a non-diagonal metric.
[/quote]
Prove it.
I ask even though I know you cannot.
[quote]This would result in ungodly complexity
in the mathematics of solving the null Ricci tensor.
[/quote]
Yeah because nobody has solved the field equations for non-diagonal metrics.
Oh wait...ROY KERR DID IT, you fucking jackass.
[quote]However, by
transforming to the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate
system, it allowed him to work with a diagonal metric which would
drastically simplify the mathematics in the null Ricci tensor.
Further reduction in complexity can be achieved by choosing another
set of coordinate system that yields a determinant of -1.
[/quote]
Really, you think a requirement that the determinant of the metric equaling
something reduces complexity? Clearly you've never even tried to solve the
field equations before considering the patent stupidity of that statement.
[quote]So,
methodically did he transform the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system into another that would result in much simpler Ricci
tensor thus simpler partial differential equations. Schwarzschild?s
original solution in the transformed coordinate system somewhat
resembled the Schwarzschild metric.
[/quote]
I would hope so, given it is the SCHWARZSCHILD METRIC.
[quote]However, remember that he had to
transform it back into the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system, Schwarzschild?s original solution does not manifest
black holes.
[/quote]
Except it does. The event horizon of a black hole is at the same point in
spacetime no matter the coordinate system. I have shown this to you before,
including showing you the explicit coordinate transformation between these
two "different" solutions.
You are such a stupid jackass that you continue to mewl impotently about a
subject you haven't the faintest hope of understanding. I know you'll snip
this without comment but I know you'll read it.
[quote]
Now, follow the reasoning of the principle of invariance.
[/quote]
Covariance, jackass.
[quote]A geometry
should be something independent of any observers, right?
[/quote]
A "geometry" is not covariant, invariant, or any combination thereof because
a "geometry" isn't a mathematical construct.
[quote]This is the
case because no mortal observer can play God Himself. A segment in
coordinate displacement does not describe the geometry.
[/quote]
Yeah, it does. You think it doesn't but you can't show otherwise because you
don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
[quote]You have to
specify the metric to do so.
[/quote]
The line element is just the metric projected in a specific coordinate
basis. A concept which you clearly still do not understand, to the amusement
of all involved.
[quote]Naturally, the metric is going to be
different in each chosen coordinate system to describe the very
invariant same geometry.
[/quote]
And here you are, so close to the intuitive leap that would make you ask the
right question about tensors. But you never do so.
[quote]It is also impossible to tell what the
geometry without identifying what coordinate system is employed. Any
elementary school children should have no trouble understanding the
relationship among the geometry, the coordinate system, and the
metric.
[/quote]
I am greatly amused to see that your level of argument refers to what a kid
in grade school thinks is going on. Is that as deep as you think about the
subject?
[quote]However, the saddest part is that the self-styled physicists
do not.
[/quote]
A normal person would wonder if the entire community of mathematicians and
physicists know something he doesn't. Especially when the argument requires
150 years of 'misunderstanding' on the part of a field of professionals.
But not kooby! Kooby knows best because he's an engineer or some shit.
[quote]Their so-called Riemannian geometry equates the metric with
the geometry and tossed away the coordinate system.
[/quote]
Well at least you've learned that physicists and mathematicians understand
the coordinate system chosen is irrelevant. You don't understand but that's
expected.
[quote]That should be
embarrassingly fvcking stupid of them. All but Hilbert understood
what is understood by elementary school children.
[/quote]
Yes, and because Hilbert is such a moron he was laughed out of every
university ever when he attempted to formalize Euclidean geometry. It just
happened that he found errors in Euclid's proofs, which stood for two
thousand goddamn years. Such a lucky break.
[quote]
A year or two later, it was Hilbert who realized that there are indeed
an infinite solutions to the field equations and presented the
Schwarzschild metric which predicts black holes.
[/quote]
How many solutions are there to F = ma? 3?
[quote]Realizing the whole
thing was total crap, he walked away and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar to claim full credit.
[/quote]
And Einstein is now one of the most celebrated scientists in history, with
only a few disgruntled and jealous sad assholes like you to try to shit on
his parade.
[quote]Needless to say
that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had absolutely
nothing to do with the nonsense of GR from the very beginning to the
very end. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar should be
a total embarrassment to science.
[/quote]
Doesn't it just rile you up to know a jew is so celebrated?
[quote]
On top of that, a black hole predicted by the Schwarzschild metric can
only form in an observer?s very infinite future.
[/quote]
But effectively forms in a few microseconds. There is such a thing as "close
enough".
[quote]Thus, to us, there
should be no black holes formed yet. So, claiming to have identified
black holes is like claiming to see Elvis alive. <shrug
[/quote]
How unfortunate for you that observation tells us otherwise, hum?
[quote]
I am still amazed that the self-styled physicists would collectively
got themselves into such embarrassing mess. Your truly has done
enough work in merely a few years that all the self-styled physicists
combined cannot have done in the past 100 years. The whole thing
about GR is utterly total nonsense. Well, and SR too.
[/quote]
I'm surprised someone with such a strong ego can stand to have his greatness
attributed to a pseudonym. Will you ever come out from under the pseudonym,
or are you happy enough to insult people from your little internet cave? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee wrote on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:26:15 -0700:
[quote]On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote:
Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*:[3] "Sagittarius A*
has a mass estimated at 4.31 ±0.06 million solar masses Given that
this mass is confined inside a 44 million km diameter sphere, this
yields a density ten times higher than previous estimates. While,
strictly speaking, there are other mass configurations that would
explain the measured mass and size, such an arrangement would
collapse into a single supermassive black hole on a timescale much
shorter than the life of the Milky Way."
So, in reality, there may be no mass in a Black Hole at all... ONLY a
mathematical reflection/facsimile thereof. Even the polar jets and the
occasional "feeding frenzy" of a Black Hole can be explained by
Classical Mechanics of the Barycenter as events and effect of the Left
or Right Hand rules for the former and by collisions of stars or
particles for the latter....
It reminds me of D'Alembert and Einstein: "The math says that "it" is
there, but if you actually go there, then there is no such thing to be
found and touched"... except in the agile mind of Einstein's
Dingleberries and mathematicians who do believe that the real world
does reside within their own mind... ahahahaha....
My guess that Black Holes are just n-body manifestations, instead of
being the exotic specimens that the heuristic paradigm believes them to
be, it is not a terribly original concept. So, does anyone know who has
already worked on this aspect of the issue?
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
[/quote]
Seeing your above comment on "Einstein Dingleberries", you start early
being wrong! :-D
First, Black hole models are not restricted to Sch metrics,
a known example are rotating black holes, but there is more. E.g. some
black hole models on superstring theory...
Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not even
when written in relaxed form!
If one insist on naming them "field equations", at least they would not be
confused with the true fields equations of a *field theory of gravity* as
that worked by Feynman and others field theorists.
Unfortunately, both set of equations are confounded and the myth of that GR
is a theory of a spin-2 field continues propagating in literature.
Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
[quote]There
are infinite such solutions. Please allow me to present the history
once again based on bits and pieces of information with forensic
evidences lying within the very mathematics involved.
During the middle to latter half of the 19th century, Christoffel
recognized that an object moving in curved space might do so in the
shortest possible local distance but not necessarily the shortest as
observed by an outsider. In doing so, he was able to derive the
geodesic equations based on this concept. However, there are two ways
to group the so-called connection coefficients. Christoffel must have
known about the other but chose to publish the more symmetric form now
called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind. These two groupings
of connection coefficients result in the same set of geodesic equations.
However, they are not the same. They are only the same when the metric
is diagonal.
Then, towards the end of the 19th century came this math alchemist named
Ricci. Single handily he invented the Riemannian geometry which has
nothing to do with Riemann. Noticing the geodesic equations can be
written to equation to zero if an operator is able to operate on the
velocity, Ricci the alchemist came up with a mathematical operator
called the covariant derivative out of the Christoffel symbols.
Apparently, he never realized there is another way to group the
connection coefficients. By taking the double covariant derivatives of
two adjacent points in space or spacetime and setting to null, he also
faced with several possibilities in grouping the connect coefficients.
Just like Christoffel, he chose only one and discarded the rest. His
chosen one became what is now called the Riemann curvature tensor.
The Riemann tensor is actual an n-by-n-by-n-by-n matrix with n^4
elements. It appeared to be a dead end until (I think it was) his
student Levi-Civita came along and invented the Ricci curvature tensor
by contracting the Riemann curvature tensor into an n-by-n matrix with
only n^2 elements.
The nature of the Ricci tensor being cooked out of alchemists’ pot
seemed not to have stopped there. It was Nordstrom who realized the
Ricci tensor can somehow mimic the Laplace equation describing Newtonian
gravity in vacuum. The solutions of the Ricci tensor, where each
element describes a partial differential equation, are each element in
the metric.
However, the Ricci tensor cannot satisfy the more general case of the
Poisson equation. It was Hilbert who modified Ricci’s mathematics to
come up with the field equations which include the Ricci tensor itself
plus the so-called trace terms to satisfy the Poisson equation.
Believe it or not. The field equations are never tested. All
predictions are based on Nordstrom’s null Ricci tensor (in vacuum) since
the field equations degenerate into the Ricci tensor in vacuum. There
are actually some subtle mathematical faults leading to the field
equations, but if a diagonal metric is involved such as all test have
done, these mathematical faults become insignificant.
Merely a few months after the publication of the field equations,
Schwarzschild came up with the first solution. After all, he had
several years to play with the null Ricci tensor. So, the feat may not
be as extraordinary as one thinks. Using the linearly rectangular
coordinate system (Euclidean) in curved space or spacetime actually
yields a non-diagonal metric. This would result in ungodly complexity
in the mathematics of solving the null Ricci tensor. However, by
transforming to the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate
system, it allowed him to work with a diagonal metric which would
drastically simplify the mathematics in the null Ricci tensor. Further
reduction in complexity can be achieved by choosing another set of
coordinate system that yields a determinant of -1. So, methodically did
he transform the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate system
into another that would result in much simpler Ricci tensor thus simpler
partial differential equations. Schwarzschild’s original solution in
the transformed coordinate system somewhat resembled the Schwarzschild
metric. However, remember that he had to transform it back into the
common spherically symmetric polar coordinate system, Schwarzschild’s
original solution does not manifest black holes.
Now, follow the reasoning of the principle of invariance. A geometry
should be something independent of any observers, right? This is the
case because no mortal observer can play God Himself. A segment in
coordinate displacement does not describe the geometry. You have to
specify the metric to do so. Naturally, the metric is going to be
different in each chosen coordinate system to describe the very
invariant same geometry. It is also impossible to tell what the
geometry without identifying what coordinate system is employed. Any
elementary school children should have no trouble understanding the
relationship among the geometry, the coordinate system, and the metric.
However, the saddest part is that the self-styled physicists do not.
Their so-called Riemannian geometry equates the metric with the geometry
and tossed away the coordinate system. That should be embarrassingly
fvcking stupid of them. All but Hilbert understood what is understood
by elementary school children.
A year or two later, it was Hilbert who realized that there are indeed
an infinite solutions to the field equations and presented the
Schwarzschild metric which predicts black holes. Realizing the whole
thing was total crap, he walked away and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar to claim full credit. Needless to say that
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had absolutely nothing
to do with the nonsense of GR from the very beginning to the very end.
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar should be a total
embarrassment to science.
On top of that, a black hole predicted by the Schwarzschild metric can
only form in an observer’s very infinite future. Thus, to us, there
should be no black holes formed yet. So, claiming to have identified
black holes is like claiming to see Elvis alive. <shrug
I am still amazed that the self-styled physicists would collectively got
themselves into such embarrassing mess. Your truly has done enough work
in merely a few years that all the self-styled physicists combined
cannot have done in the past 100 years. The whole thing about GR is
utterly total nonsense. Well, and SR too.
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| glird... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 6:26 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[a lot of good stuff snipped}
[quote]
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the >liar
[/quote]
Einstein wasn't a nitwit or a liar. he was a class 3 worker in a
Swiss office, waiting to get into college, when he wrote his 190 STR
paper. Although he copied some of Lorentz's equations amd tried to
derive the Lorentz transformations he copied from Poincare's; thus was
a plagiarist in that sense, he was not a liar. indeed, although he
didn't understand the meanings of his own 1805 equations, he DID write
a 3 part paper in 1907 that does explain the underlyign physics and
sets the stage for his eventual arrival
at the ricci-tcci-tavi math of his general theory.
So, mr kubee woopsi, if you want to stay sensible instead of off
your rocker, stop insertign your favorite phrase, "Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar", into what might otherwise be an
excellent argument.
glird |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:03 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3566
|
On Oct 31, 9:17 am, mL <mL.bey... at (no spam) elsewhere.xxx> wrote:
[quote]Koobee Wublee skrev:
On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote:
[...]
My guess that Black Holes are just n-body manifestations,
instead of being the exotic specimens that the heuristic paradigm
believes them to be, it is not a terribly original concept.
So, does anyone know who has already worked on this
aspect of the issue?
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
There are infinite such solutions. Please allow me to present the
history once again based on bits and pieces of information with
forensic evidences lying within the very mathematics involved.
Look, knobby wants to decorate a naive speculation
by hanson with his own self-styled fluff and some
fluff plagiarized from Bjerkness, the "scholar".
How unexpected!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Directions for motion and extension are curved. Gravity is round.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mL... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee skrev:
[quote]On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote:
[...]
My guess that Black Holes are just n-body manifestations,
instead of being the exotic specimens that the heuristic paradigm
believes them to be, it is not a terribly original concept.
So, does anyone know who has already worked on this
aspect of the issue?
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
There are infinite such solutions. Please allow me to present the
history once again based on bits and pieces of information with
forensic evidences lying within the very mathematics involved.
[/quote]
Look, knobby wants to decorate a naive speculation
by hanson with his own self-styled fluff and some
fluff plagiarized from Bjerkness, the "scholar".
How unexpected! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:09 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3566
|
On Oct 31, 7:24 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not even
when written in relaxed form!
This is just plain not true, regardless of whatever you mean by "relaxed
form". The field equation of GR relates fields, making it a field equation.
If one insist on naming them "field equations", at least they would not be
confused with the true fields equations of a *field theory of gravity* as
that worked by Feynman and others field theorists.
You use rather silly puns on the word "field". Perhaps your command of
English is insufficient to recognize this.
GR is, and always has been, a field theory. Indeed, it is the theory for
which the term "field theory" was coined, and was the very first field
theory that made its way into mainstream physics. It is, of course, a
CLASSICAL field theory (i.e. non-quantum).
And it is the only classical field theory with a fundamental
role in modern physics; all others are quantum field
theories. This distinction is the source of much current
interest in finding a quantum theory of gravity.
Unfortunately, both set of equations are confounded
Huh??? They are completely different theories, with completely different
equations. How could one possibly "confound" equations of classical and
quantum theories???
[Do you really know what the word means? To confound
two concepts or objects means to confuse them with each
other, not recognizing their differences. Verbally the
words "red" and "read" can easily be confounded, but not
when they are written.]
the myth of that GR
is a theory of a spin-2 field continues propagating in literature.
That "myth" is of your own making. GR makes no mention whatsoever of
"spin-2 field". Yes, there is a RELATED theory that involves a spin-2
graviton field on a Minkowski background, but that is most definitely
not GR.
Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
Yes, Koobee's mistakes are legion, but you added your own.
Tom Roberts
[/quote]
Gravity is round. It is sphere geometry curve emanating from center of
mass out into the aether.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote:
[quote]Koobee Wublee wrote:
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
Seeing your above comment on "Einstein Dingleberries", you start early
being wrong! :-D
First, Black hole models are not restricted to Sch metrics,
a known example are rotating black holes, but there is more. E.g. some
black hole models on superstring theory...
[/quote]
Hmmm... They are merely variants of the same brainchild. <shrgu>
[quote]Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not even
when written in relaxed form!
[/quote]
You need to study the field equations. <shrgu>
[quote]If one insist on naming them "field equations", at least they would not be
confused with the true fields equations of a *field theory of gravity* as
that worked by Feynman and others field theorists.
[/quote]
<shrug>
[quote]Unfortunately, both set of equations are confounded and the myth of that GR
is a theory of a spin-2 field continues propagating in literature.
[/quote]
There is nothing supporting your absurd argument. <shrgu>
[quote]Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
[/quote]
That is wrong.
[quote]There
are infinite such solutions. Please allow me to present the history
once again based on bits and pieces of information with forensic
evidences lying within the very mathematics involved.
During the middle to latter half of the 19th century, Christoffel
recognized that an object moving in curved space might do so in the
shortest possible local distance but not necessarily the shortest as
observed by an outsider. In doing so, he was able to derive the
geodesic equations based on this concept. However, there are two ways
to group the so-called connection coefficients. Christoffel must have
known about the other but chose to publish the more symmetric form now
called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind. These two groupings
of connection coefficients result in the same set of geodesic equations..
However, they are not the same. They are only the same when the metric
is diagonal.
Then, towards the end of the 19th century came this math alchemist named
Ricci. Single handily he invented the Riemannian geometry which has
nothing to do with Riemann. Noticing the geodesic equations can be
written to equation to zero if an operator is able to operate on the
velocity, Ricci the alchemist came up with a mathematical operator
called the covariant derivative out of the Christoffel symbols.
Apparently, he never realized there is another way to group the
connection coefficients. By taking the double covariant derivatives of
two adjacent points in space or spacetime and setting to null, he also
faced with several possibilities in grouping the connect coefficients.
Just like Christoffel, he chose only one and discarded the rest. His
chosen one became what is now called the Riemann curvature tensor.
The Riemann tensor is actual an n-by-n-by-n-by-n matrix with n^4
elements. It appeared to be a dead end until (I think it was) his
student Levi-Civita came along and invented the Ricci curvature tensor
by contracting the Riemann curvature tensor into an n-by-n matrix with
only n^2 elements.
The nature of the Ricci tensor being cooked out of alchemists’ pot
seemed not to have stopped there. It was Nordstrom who realized the
Ricci tensor can somehow mimic the Laplace equation describing Newtonian
gravity in vacuum. The solutions of the Ricci tensor, where each
element describes a partial differential equation, are each element in
the metric.
However, the Ricci tensor cannot satisfy the more general case of the
Poisson equation. It was Hilbert who modified Ricci’s mathematics to
come up with the field equations which include the Ricci tensor itself
plus the so-called trace terms to satisfy the Poisson equation.
Believe it or not. The field equations are never tested. All
predictions are based on Nordstrom’s null Ricci tensor (in vacuum) since
the field equations degenerate into the Ricci tensor in vacuum. There
are actually some subtle mathematical faults leading to the field
equations, but if a diagonal metric is involved such as all test have
done, these mathematical faults become insignificant.
Merely a few months after the publication of the field equations,
Schwarzschild came up with the first solution. After all, he had
several years to play with the null Ricci tensor. So, the feat may not
be as extraordinary as one thinks. Using the linearly rectangular
coordinate system (Euclidean) in curved space or spacetime actually
yields a non-diagonal metric. This would result in ungodly complexity
in the mathematics of solving the null Ricci tensor. However, by
transforming to the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate
system, it allowed him to work with a diagonal metric which would
drastically simplify the mathematics in the null Ricci tensor. Further
reduction in complexity can be achieved by choosing another set of
coordinate system that yields a determinant of -1. So, methodically did
he transform the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate system
into another that would result in much simpler Ricci tensor thus simpler
partial differential equations. Schwarzschild’s original solution in
the transformed coordinate system somewhat resembled the Schwarzschild
metric. However, remember that he had to transform it back into the
common spherically symmetric polar coordinate system, Schwarzschild’s
original solution does not manifest black holes.
Now, follow the reasoning of the principle of invariance. A geometry
should be something independent of any observers, right? This is the
case because no mortal observer can play God Himself. A segment in
coordinate displacement does not describe the geometry. You have to
specify the metric to do so. Naturally, the metric is going to be
different in each chosen coordinate system to describe the very
invariant same geometry. It is also impossible to tell what the
geometry without identifying what coordinate system is employed. Any
elementary school children should have no trouble understanding the
relationship among the geometry, the coordinate system, and the metric.
However, the saddest part is that the self-styled physicists do not.
Their so-called Riemannian geometry equates the metric with the geometry
and tossed away the coordinate system. That should be embarrassingly
fvcking stupid of them. All but Hilbert understood what is understood
by elementary school children.
A year or two later, it was Hilbert who realized that there are indeed
an infinite solutions to the field equations and presented the
Schwarzschild metric which predicts black holes. Realizing the whole
thing was total crap, he walked away and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar to claim full credit. Needless to say that
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had absolutely nothing
to do with the nonsense of GR from the very beginning to the very end.
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar should be a total
embarrassment to science.
On top of that, a black hole predicted by the Schwarzschild metric can
only form in an observer’s very infinite future. Thus, to us, there
should be no black holes formed yet. So, claiming to have identified
black holes is like claiming to see Elvis alive. <shrug
I am still amazed that the self-styled physicists would collectively got
themselves into such embarrassing mess. Your truly has done enough work
in merely a few years that all the self-styled physicists combined
cannot have done in the past 100 years. The whole thing about GR is
utterly total nonsense. Well, and SR too.
[/quote]
What mistakes? It looks like pristine research and analyses to me.
<shrgu> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 7:10 pm, eric gisse wrote:
[quote]Koobee Wublee wrote:
[/quote]
Why do you keep narrowing or changing the newsgroups? You are indeed
a coward. <shrug>
[quote]Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
And Kerr-Newman, and Reisser-Nordstom, and the Hawking singularity theorems,
and every computer simulation of a collapsing dust scenario.
[/quote]
Same nonsense with different mathematics. <shrug> All can only exist
in an observer's infinite future. <shrug> Anyone able to employ a
coordinate system would never observe a black hole according to the
mathematics. <shrgu>
[quote]There are infinite such solutions.
And once again we run smack dab into your inability to understand what an
isomorphism is, or what tensor equations are. Or even the basic concept of
the tensor, for that matter.
[/quote]
You have been shown how you as a college dropout cannot even
understand the basic concept in principle of invariance in which the
geometry can only be described by the very combination of the
coordinate system and the metric. The coordinate system or the metric
alone cannot describe the invariant geometry. This logical deduction
falls under elementary schools. <shrug>
The rest of nonsense is snipped not read since you have started with
all fouled up errors. <shrgu> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[...]
[quote]Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not
even when written in relaxed form!
[/quote]
The metric g_ij form a field ---> the equations for g_ij determine g_ij
(duh?) ---> they are field equations.
Not a tough one.
[quote]
If one insist on naming them "field equations", at least they would not be
confused with the true fields equations of a *field theory of gravity* as
that worked by Feynman and others field theorists.
[/quote]
Folks who understand the subject would understand the difference between a
field that is/determines (depending how you look at it) space-time and a
field on top of a predefined manifold.
[quote]
Unfortunately, both set of equations are confounded and the myth of that
GR is a theory of a spin-2 field continues propagating in literature.
[/quote]
And yet oddly enough, the literature actually claims something more
specific. The literature claims that if you quantize linearized GR, it takes
the form of a theory with spin 2 particles mediating gravitation. Subtly
different from "GR is a theory of a spin-2 field".
[...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 10:57 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
[/quote]
So----Einstein ran a berry farm? Do his descendents keep on with the
tradition? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 9:34 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 10:57 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
So----Einstein ran a berry farm? Do his descendents keep on with the
tradition?
[/quote]
I don't know and don't care either. Why would I care about or hate a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar? GR is absurd, and it had nothing to
do with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Roberts... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
[quote]Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not even
when written in relaxed form!
[/quote]
This is just plain not true, regardless of whatever you mean by "relaxed
form". The field equation of GR relates fields, making it a field equation.
[quote]If one insist on naming them "field equations", at least they would not be
confused with the true fields equations of a *field theory of gravity* as
that worked by Feynman and others field theorists.
[/quote]
You use rather silly puns on the word "field". Perhaps your command of
English is insufficient to recognize this.
GR is, and always has been, a field theory. Indeed, it is the theory for
which the term "field theory" was coined, and was the very first field
theory that made its way into mainstream physics. It is, of course, a
CLASSICAL field theory (i.e. non-quantum).
And it is the only classical field theory with a fundamental
role in modern physics; all others are quantum field
theories. This distinction is the source of much current
interest in finding a quantum theory of gravity.
[quote]Unfortunately, both set of equations are confounded
[/quote]
Huh??? They are completely different theories, with completely different
equations. How could one possibly "confound" equations of classical and
quantum theories???
[Do you really know what the word means? To confound
two concepts or objects means to confuse them with each
other, not recognizing their differences. Verbally the
words "red" and "read" can easily be confounded, but not
when they are written.]
[quote]the myth of that GR
is a theory of a spin-2 field continues propagating in literature.
[/quote]
That "myth" is of your own making. GR makes no mention whatsoever of
"spin-2 field". Yes, there is a RELATED theory that involves a spin-2
graviton field on a Minkowski background, but that is most definitely
not GR.
[quote]Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
[/quote]
Yes, Koobee's mistakes are legion, but you added your own.
Tom Roberts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hanson... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"BURT" <macromitch at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote:
Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*:[3]
"Sagittarius A* has a mass estimated at 4.31 ±0.06 million
solar masses Given that this mass is confined inside a
44 million km diameter sphere, this yields a density ten
times higher than previous estimates. While, strictly speaking,
there are other mass configurations that would explain the
measured mass and size, such an arrangement would collapse
into a single supermassive black hole on a timescale much
shorter than the life of the Milky Way."
hanson wrote:
So, in reality, there may be no mass in a Black Hole at all...
ONLY a mathematical reflection/facsimile thereof. Even the
polar jets and the occasional "feeding frenzy" of a Black Hole
can be explained by Classical Mechanics of the Barycenter
as events and effect of the Left or Right Hand rules for the
former and by collisions of stars or particles for the latter....
It reminds me of D'Alembert and Einstein: "The math says that
"it" is there, but if you actually go there, then there is no such
thing to be found and touched"... except in the agile mind of
Einstein's Dingleberries and mathematicians who do believe
that the real world does reside within their own mind...
ahahahaha....
My guess that Black Holes are just n-body manifestations,
instead of being the exotic specimens that the heuristic paradigm
believes them to be, it is not a terribly original concept.
So, does anyone know who has already worked on this
aspect of the issue?
KW wrote:
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
There are infinite such solutions. Please allow me to present the
history once again based on bits and pieces of information with
forensic evidences lying within the very mathematics involved.
During the middle to latter half of the 19th century, Christoffel
recognized that an object moving in curved space might do so in the
shortest possible local distance but not necessarily the shortest as
observed by an outsider. In doing so, he was able to derive the
geodesic equations based on this concept. However, there are two ways
to group the so-called connection coefficients. Christoffel must have
known about the other but chose to publish the more symmetric form now
called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind. These two
groupings of connection coefficients result in the same set of
geodesic equations. However, they are not the same. They are only
the same when the metric is diagonal.
Then, towards the end of the 19th century came this math alchemist
named Ricci. Single handily he invented the Riemannian geometry which
has nothing to do with Riemann. Noticing the geodesic equations can
be written to equation to zero if an operator is able to operate on
the velocity, Ricci the alchemist came up with a mathematical operator
called the covariant derivative out of the Christoffel symbols.
Apparently, he never realized there is another way to group the
connection coefficients. By taking the double covariant derivatives
of two adjacent points in space or spacetime and setting to null, he
also faced with several possibilities in grouping the connect
coefficients. Just like Christoffel, he chose only one and discarded
the rest. His chosen one became what is now called the Riemann
curvature tensor.
The Riemann tensor is actual an n-by-n-by-n-by-n matrix with n^4
elements. It appeared to be a dead end until (I think it was) his
student Levi-Civita came along and invented the Ricci curvature tensor
by contracting the Riemann curvature tensor into an n-by-n matrix with
only n^2 elements.
The nature of the Ricci tensor being cooked out of alchemists’ pot
seemed not to have stopped there. It was Nordstrom who realized the
Ricci tensor can somehow mimic the Laplace equation describing
Newtonian gravity in vacuum. The solutions of the Ricci tensor, where
each element describes a partial differential equation, are each
element in the metric.
However, the Ricci tensor cannot satisfy the more general case of the
Poisson equation. It was Hilbert who modified Ricci’s mathematics to
come up with the field equations which include the Ricci tensor itself
plus the so-called trace terms to satisfy the Poisson equation.
Believe it or not. The field equations are never tested. All
predictions are based on Nordstrom’s null Ricci tensor (in vacuum)
since the field equations degenerate into the Ricci tensor in vacuum.
There are actually some subtle mathematical faults leading to the
field equations, but if a diagonal metric is involved such as all test
have done, these mathematical faults become insignificant.
Merely a few months after the publication of the field equations,
Schwarzschild came up with the first solution. After all, he had
several years to play with the null Ricci tensor. So, the feat may
not be as extraordinary as one thinks. Using the linearly rectangular
coordinate system (Euclidean) in curved space or spacetime actually
yields a non-diagonal metric. This would result in ungodly complexity
in the mathematics of solving the null Ricci tensor. However, by
transforming to the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate
system, it allowed him to work with a diagonal metric which would
drastically simplify the mathematics in the null Ricci tensor.
Further reduction in complexity can be achieved by choosing another
set of coordinate system that yields a determinant of -1. So,
methodically did he transform the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system into another that would result in much simpler Ricci
tensor thus simpler partial differential equations. Schwarzschild’s
original solution in the transformed coordinate system somewhat
resembled the Schwarzschild metric. However, remember that he had to
transform it back into the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system, Schwarzschild’s original solution does not manifest
black holes.
Now, follow the reasoning of the principle of invariance. A geometry
should be something independent of any observers, right? This is the
case because no mortal observer can play God Himself. A segment in
coordinate displacement does not describe the geometry. You have to
specify the metric to do so. Naturally, the metric is going to be
different in each chosen coordinate system to describe the very
invariant same geometry. It is also impossible to tell what the
geometry without identifying what coordinate system is employed. Any
elementary school children should have no trouble understanding the
relationship among the geometry, the coordinate system, and the
metric. However, the saddest part is that the self-styled physicists
do not. Their so-called Riemannian geometry equates the metric with
the geometry and tossed away the coordinate system. That should be
embarrassingly fvcking stupid of them. All but Hilbert understood
what is understood by elementary school children.
A year or two later, it was Hilbert who realized that there are indeed
an infinite solutions to the field equations and presented the
Schwarzschild metric which predicts black holes. Realizing the whole
thing was total crap, he walked away and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar to claim full credit. Needless to say
that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had absolutely
nothing to do with the nonsense of GR from the very beginning to the
very end. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar should be
a total embarrassment to science.
On top of that, a black hole predicted by the Schwarzschild metric can
only form in an observer’s very infinite future. Thus, to us, there
should be no black holes formed yet. So, claiming to have identified
black holes is like claiming to see Elvis alive. <shrug
I am still amazed that the self-styled physicists would collectively
got themselves into such embarrassing mess. Your truly has done
enough work in merely a few years that all the self-styled physicists
combined cannot have done in the past 100 years. The whole thing
about GR is utterly total nonsense. Well, and SR too.- Hide quoted text -
Mitch Raemsch wrote:[/quote]
There is already disproof for black holes. Pound Rebka predicts black
holes will blueshift incomming light infinitely. The infinite energy
of light prediction for a black hole at its boundary is the disproof.
Falling in the aether is always below light speed. Which means; it
needs to be pointed out; limited gravity/speed theory is the extreme
of gravity and we are not seeing black holes but instead something
else.
[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
Raemsch, if you wish to sell your weltbild about the issue then
produce some math about it. Start with |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G ||||
This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or
contraction, of matter content in normal 3D space , expressed
here as reciprocal density, 1/rho, will asymptotically default to
the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics
phenomena as we know them.
Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate
mathematically that there is no matter content within a the
confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary-
center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain
is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
[quote]
KW, hanson will be back with you in a few days about your take.[/quote]
hanson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:54 am
|
|