> Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc...@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. 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.
> On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc...@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 -
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.
> You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein > Dingleberries.
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?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
*smirk*
> 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.
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.
> Christoffel must have > known about the other but chose to publish the more symmetric form now > called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind.
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.
> 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.
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.
> Then, towards the end of the 19th century came this math alchemist
LOL @ "math alchemist"
> named Ricci. Single handily he invented the Riemannian geometry which > has nothing to do with Riemann.
Which is why its' named after Ricci. Oh wait it isn't.
> 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.
I'm sure this made sense in your addled mind.
> Apparently, he never realized there is another way to group the > connection coefficients.
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.
> By taking the double covariant derivatives > of two adjacent points in space or spacetime and setting to null, he
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.
> 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.
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?
> The Riemann tensor is actual an n-by-n-by-n-by-n matrix with n^4 > elements.
Hey look! Someone /still/ doesn't know the difference between a matrix and a tensor!
> It appeared to be a dead end until (I think it was) his
You think? Why don't you refer to your nonexistent source material so you can be more certain while you are making shit up?
> 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.
Do you even know what the contraction operation is? Do you?
> The nature of the Ricci tensor being cooked out of alchemists? pot > seemed not to have stopped there.
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.
> It was Nordstrom who realized the > Ricci tensor can somehow mimic the Laplace equation describing > Newtonian gravity in vacuum.
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!
> The solutions of the Ricci tensor, where > each element describes a partial differential equation, are each > element in the metric.
Which you couldn't solve if your life depended on it.
> However, the Ricci tensor cannot satisfy the more general case of the > Poisson equation.
That's because Poisson's equation is a scalar equation, while a tensor is a TENSOR you goddamn jackass.
> 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.
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?
> Believe it or not.
Nobody but you and people with specific agendas do.
> The field equations are never tested. All
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.
> 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
Well when you butcher the derivation repeatedly, its' easy to understand why you'd think there are faults.
> , but if a diagonal metric is involved such as all test > have done, these mathematical faults become insignificant.
There's that odd little fixation on diagonal metrics again.
> 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.
It is extraordinary enough, considering you can't understand the solution with a GPS device, sherpa, forged trail, and a compass to guide you.
> Using the linearly rectangular > coordinate system (Euclidean) in curved space
Euclid is flat, dipshit.
> or spacetime actually > yields a non-diagonal metric.
Prove it.
I ask even though I know you cannot.
> This would result in ungodly complexity > in the mathematics of solving the null Ricci tensor.
Yeah because nobody has solved the field equations for non-diagonal metrics. Oh wait...ROY KERR DID IT, you fucking jackass.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
I would hope so, given it is 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.
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.
> Now, follow the reasoning of the principle of invariance.
Covariance, jackass.
> A geometry > should be something independent of any observers, right?
A "geometry" is not covariant, invariant, or any combination thereof because a "geometry" isn't a mathematical construct.
> This is the > case because no mortal observer can play God Himself. A segment in > coordinate displacement does not describe the geometry.
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.
> You have to > specify the metric to do so.
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.
> On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: >> Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc...@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.
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.
> 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.
On Oct 30, 6:26 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: [a lot of good stuff snipped}
>Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the >liar
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.
> On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...@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!
> > On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...@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 -
Directions for motion and extension are curved. Gravity is round.
> Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not > even when written in relaxed form!
The metric g_ij form a field ---> the equations for g_ij determine g_ij (duh?) ---> they are field equations.
Not a tough one.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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".
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.
> 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
Gravity is round. It is sphere geometry curve emanating from center of mass out into the aether.
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.
> > 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...
Hmmm... They are merely variants of the same brainchild. <shrgu>
> Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not even > when written in relaxed form!
You need to study the field equations. <shrgu>
> 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.
<shrug>
> 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.
There is nothing supporting your absurd argument. <shrgu>
> Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
> > 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.
What mistakes? It looks like pristine research and analyses to me. <shrgu>
Why do you keep narrowing or changing the newsgroups? You are indeed a coward. <shrug>
> > 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.
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>
> > 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.
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>
> On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: > > Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc...@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:
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.
hanson wrote:
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
> On Oct 31, 10:57 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote: > So----Einstein ran a berry farm? Do his descendents keep on with the > tradition?
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>
Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:24:33 -0500:
> 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.
I do not like to debate stuff with ignorants as you, who lack even the most elementary knowledge of the topics.
At least you could show some interest in your education Tom and search *standard* concepts as "relaxed form" before posting
There is many crackpots in those forums who launch on commenting on stuff they never studied :-D
>> 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).
This is a bunch of nonsense and straw mans. Apart from your ignorance of the physics and the math you want also to show us your ignorance of the history of physics!
> 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.
The 40+ years fiasco on *quantizing general relativity* [#] is related to confounding concepts and trying to mix general relativity and quantum field theory in scary ways.
>> 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???
Who said that? Can you even read or are only trolling?
> [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.
You do not know the myth because you are an ignorant of literature. Other more knowledeable people as Wald know its existence and devote part of his textbook to explain why the claim that general relativity is a spin-2 field theory is a myth.
Could you stop from posting in fields :-D where you are a crackpot or how the pinecone you have a need to be exposed in public?
[#] As other you confound this subject with the more generic of quantum gravity. E.g. the quantum theory of field gravity or the quantum theory of AAAD gravity are already at hand.
> 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.
>> > 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...
> Hmmm... They are merely variants of the same brainchild. <shrgu>
Plain wrong.
>> Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not >> even when written in relaxed form!
> You need to study the field equations. <shrgu>
One never know enough, but you stop from studying time ago because you know enough :-D
>> 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.
> <shrug>
>> 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.
> There is nothing supporting your absurd argument. <shrgu>
Sure?
>> Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
> That is wrong.
Just take a look. Not wait, you cannot see them. You could in last 10 years :-D
I greatly enjoy the superposition of you arguing with someone who has a PhD in physics about how the person with a PhD doesn't know what he is talking about.
> On Oct 31, 9:34 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote: >> On Oct 31, 10:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>> You are on better track than any self-styled physicists >>>> aka Einstein Dingleberries.
>> So----Einstein ran a berry farm? Do his descendents keep on with the >> tradition? > > 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>
Speaking of dingleberryism, isn't it rather remarkable, then, how obsessed you are with such a "nobody"?
BTW Mr Koobee, in case you see yourself as something more than a nobody, what's your achievements in science matters such as:
- published science papers - professional career - appreciation of fellow scientists
> 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.
Funny fantasies, but please continue.
> 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
Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you so scared of math that you ask characters like KW and Raemsch for help?
> KW, hanson will be back with you in a few days about your take. > hanson
<|||| 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 the confines of a so-called black hole.>
BahbahHandson claims that "matter content" = "no matter content". If that wasn't so stoopid it might be laughable...
On Nov 1, 8:09 am, mL <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote: > > 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>
> Speaking of dingleberryism, isn't it rather remarkable, > then, how obsessed you are with such a "nobody"?
Ahahahaha... Does it look like I am obsessed with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? No, that is why I label Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
You, on the other hand, get all bend out of shape reading Einstein as a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The question is that why you worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
> BTW Mr Koobee, in case you see yourself as something more > than a nobody, what's your achievements in science matters > such as:
> - published science papers
The first step is to publish my post at where trolls like Gisse, Dono, moortel, Webb, Juanshito, mL, and many others are off limit. However, these Einstein Dingleberries just would not allow anything to be published. In time, I will publish some papers. Would that satisfy your whining for the time being?
> - professional career
Does the ever so humble Koobee Wublee have a professional career?
> - appreciation of fellow scientists
I don't appreciate anyone worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar such as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Is that too much to ask?
> On Oct 30, 3:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: > > > Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc...@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:
> 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.
> hanson wrote:
> 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
> On Nov 1, 8:09 am, mL <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > 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>
> > Speaking of dingleberryism, isn't it rather remarkable, > > then, how obsessed you are with such a "nobody"?
> Ahahahaha... Does it look like I am obsessed with Einstein the > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? No, that is why I label > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a nitwit, a > plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> You, on the other hand, get all bend out of shape reading Einstein as > a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The question is that why you > worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
> > BTW Mr Koobee, in case you see yourself as something more > > than a nobody, what's your achievements in science matters > > such as:
> > - published science papers
> The first step is to publish my post at where trolls like Gisse, Dono, > moortel, Webb, Juanshito, mL, and many others are off limit. However, > these Einstein Dingleberries just would not allow anything to be > published. In time, I will publish some papers. Would that satisfy > your whining for the time being?
> > - professional career
> Does the ever so humble Koobee Wublee have a professional career?
> > - appreciation of fellow scientists
> I don't appreciate anyone worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a > liar such as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Is > that too much to ask?
Space is round. Gravity is round spherical geometry emerging from mass center.
> On Nov 1, 8:09 am, mL <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > 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>
> > Speaking of dingleberryism, isn't it rather remarkable, > > then, how obsessed you are with such a "nobody"?
> Ahahahaha... Does it look like I am obsessed with Einstein the > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? No, that is why I label > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a nitwit, a > plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> You, on the other hand, get all bend out of shape reading Einstein as > a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The question is that why you > worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
> > BTW Mr Koobee, in case you see yourself as something more > > than a nobody, what's your achievements in science matters > > such as:
> > - published science papers
> The first step is to publish my post at where trolls like Gisse, Dono, > moortel, Webb, Juanshito, mL, and many others are off limit. However, > these Einstein Dingleberries just would not allow anything to be > published. In time, I will publish some papers. Would that satisfy > your whining for the time being?
> > - professional career
> Does the ever so humble Koobee Wublee have a professional career?
> > - appreciation of fellow scientists
> I don't appreciate anyone worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a > liar such as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Is > that too much to ask?
The first now was at the beginning of time. Forever now.
|
