Prev: The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth
Next: Everything has its own Aether
From: glird on 31 Oct 2009 11:18
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.

glird
From: mL on 31 Oct 2009 12:17
Koobee Wublee skrev:

> On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...(a)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!
From: Tom Roberts on 31 Oct 2009 22:24
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
From: BURT on 31 Oct 2009 23:09
On Oct 31, 7:24 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Koobee Wublee on 1 Nov 2009 00:04
On Oct 30, 7:10 pm, eric gisse wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

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>
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth
Next: Everything has its own Aether