GR -> Schwarzschild Metric -> Black Holes
in [Physics]
|
From: Aleph on 8 Nov 2009 10:57 On Friday 06 November 2009 07:50, in <8de65ecb-8b62-4876- a1b9-04f1838c703e(a)s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Y.y.Porat sat down and wrote: > On Nov 3, 9:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Sam Wormley wrote: >> > Inertial wrote: >> >> >> Who is Mike Varney, and why is Porat so obsessed with him that he >> >> keeps hoping this Varney person has returned? Were they lovers? >> >> > Mike is a PhD physicist that doesn't suffer fools gladly. >> > It is a lot of fun when Mike pops in to visit the newsgroup >> > now and then! >> >> Maybe, just maybe, Mike is here now! > > ---------------- > and his new name is > Alpha You are quite wrong. Even if you are accusing me (Aleph) of being this Mike Varney person. Having said that, you are wrong so often I suspect you are no longer capable of telling. > 9though he is not intelligent enough to know > what is the origin of that name he chose for himself Ah, I fully know the origin of the name *I* chose for myself and the reason *I* chose it. The fact it has no meaning to you, and I have no intention of telling you my reason, is irrelevant. > that fucken PHd of yours > never talks physics !! only personal abuse *yawn* > 2 > he as well as you > has some greetings from your > Higges Bosons > and you dont deserve more than that !! Yeah, Happy Easter right back at you. -- Aleph This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to this account are very likely to be ignored.
From: Tom Roberts on 8 Nov 2009 23:22 Nunemica wrote: > Have you read any of Stephen Crothers papers on Einstein, GR, Black > Holes and the Schwarzschild space-time metric > http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html Hmmm. I just looked at the opening paragraphs of "24. Fundamental Errors in the General Theory of Relativity". It first four paragraphs are full of polemic and contain numerous errors of fact. The author's approach seems to be to take a few incorrect statements by non-experts and consider them to be somehow representative of GR. > The site is really worth looking at. Not really. Tom Roberts
From: Koobee Wublee on 8 Nov 2009 23:44 Hmmm... Mr. Crother has discovered another solution that is also static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat other than Schwarzschild's original metric and the Schwarzschild metric. It does not make Mr. Crother's solution more correct than either Schwarzschild's original solution or the Schwarzschild metric, and vice versa. <shrug> You can always find a solution to the field equations to describe your observations whatever, whenever, and wherever they were, are, and will be. Some nitwits would call the field equations the best human discovery since sliced cheese. True scholars of physics would call that super abstract concept visually and vividly illustrated by the following pictorial representation. <shrug> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3196671424_70f7766063.jpg
From: eric gisse on 8 Nov 2009 23:55 Tom Roberts wrote: [...] >> The site is really worth looking at. > > Not really. Read the correspondence between him and Roy Kerr. > > > Tom Roberts
From: eric gisse on 8 Nov 2009 23:56
Koobee Wublee wrote: > Hmmm... Mr. Crother has discovered another solution that is also > static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat other than > Schwarzschild's original metric and the Schwarzschild metric. It does > not make Mr. Crother's solution more correct than either > Schwarzschild's original solution or the Schwarzschild metric, and > vice versa. <shrug> > > You can always find a solution to the field equations to describe your > observations whatever, whenever, and wherever they were, are, and will > be. Some nitwits would call the field equations the best human > discovery since sliced cheese. True scholars of physics would call > that super abstract concept visually and vividly illustrated by the > following pictorial representation. <shrug> > > http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3196671424_70f7766063.jpg That's a long way of explaining that you do not understand covariance. |