GR -> Schwarzschild Metric -> Black Holes
in [Physics]
|
From: Don Stockbauer on 1 Nov 2009 00:34 On Oct 31, 10:57 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So----Einstein ran a berry farm? Do his descendents keep on with the tradition?
From: Koobee Wublee on 1 Nov 2009 00:44 On Oct 31, 9:34 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote: > 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>
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 1 Nov 2009 09:17 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 http://www.emis.de/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2006-3/articlesu14.html 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. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 1 Nov 2009 09:20 Koobee Wublee wrote on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:57:18 -0700: > 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 -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: mL on 1 Nov 2009 11:09
Koobee Wublee: > 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 / mel |