GR -> Schwarzschild Metric -> Black Holes
in [Physics]
|
From: mL on 1 Nov 2009 11:33 hanson: > 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. 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 Yeah, more entertainments.
From: glird on 1 Nov 2009 13:16 On Oct 31, 11:40 pm, "hanson" <hahahah> wrote: > <|||| 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... glird
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 2 Nov 2009 03:54 "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:17:16 +0000: > 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 Link is not working today. Tom, I doubt that you can see that "lrr-2006-3" is a typical code of living reviews journal, knowing your ignorance of literature :-D For the benefit of your education Tom, I add another link to the "relaxed form" of Einstein equations (see eq 62) http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2006-3&page=articlesu14.html But calling them field equations is still wrong. Explaining why is advanced and requires a good basis of both GR and field theory. There is an entire section (section 14) in http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html discussing the differences between the Hilbert-Einstein equations in relaxed form [equation 62 in above link, equation 15 in the CSR:20092 report] and the equations of field theory of gravity [equation 41 in the CSR:20092 report] I will leave this part of your education for another day. Now just start above Tom; familiarizate yourself with the basic stuff FIRST. (...) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 2 Nov 2009 04:10 Sam Wormley wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:27:32 +0000: > eric gisse wrote: >> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> 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. > > I find that amusing also! It is much more amusing that both you and Eric sniped the part where he 'PhD' [#] affirms that he does not even know what is the "relaxed form" of Einstein equations! :-D And, of course, both of you sniped the link to the Living Review journal containing the equations that neither him nor both of you know :-D [#] i.e. the same HEP experimentalist who has said *pearls* such as his claim that c and G are not universal constants in GR but parameters http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0295a373a580782e http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/94c04b345f963eac -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: eric gisse on 2 Nov 2009 10:31
Koobee Wublee wrote: [...] > > 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? You can't even give a literature reference, much less write a scholarly article. > >> - 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? |