What is known about this Crothers?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Moving Dimensions Theory dx4/dt=ic) is Being Discussed all Over the World. What Language is This?
Next: The Opposing Law
From: kluto on 3 Jan 2010 05:53 Hi Stephen, we were just talking about you. My question actually wasn't about your inner perfection. More modestly, it was about how to explain you to my students. Perhaps as a professional mathematician, and in that case in which field of specialty. Or as a physicist, and in that case in which field of specialty. Or as a library assistant, and a social science graduate. Good that you are here to clear it up once and for all.
From: Ace0f_5pades on 3 Jan 2010 09:57 On Jan 3, 9:20 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 2:11 am, kluto <tommyrjen...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I am lecturing a two semester course in Differential Geometry, and I > > recommended my students to look into the theory of General Relativity, > > whenever they have time to spare for it. I noticed by googling away, > > that the name Stephen J. Crothers comes up frequently in connection > > with GR. Sometimes he is credited for being a professional > > mathematician, sometimes a phycisist, and yet other times as a being a > > library assistant. I began to doubt the former, after reading some of > > his material. He also seems to have a definite weak point when it > > comes to interpreting Einstein's field equations, which could be true > > though of phycisists in general who are not specialists. There seem to > > be some publications around on library related issues which have > > Crothers as a coauthor and seem to approach their objects of study > > with a professional enough attitude, speaking as a non-expert myself. > > Is it known whether this person is actually a mathematician, a > > physicist, or a library assistant? And if neither of the former, then > > why is he constantly refererred to as an expert on General Relativity? > > That is a typical conversation between two Einstein Dingleberries who > know nothing better other than the intoxicating taste of fermented > diarrhea from Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. > Wow! Did yours truly fully get your attention or what? > > Yes, the so-called specialists in this subject get to their > specialized positions by thoroughly exploiting the following Orwellian > doctrines. > > ** FAITH IS THEORY > ** LYING IS TEACHING > ** NITWIT IS GENIUS > ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE > ** PARADOX IS KOSHER > ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH > ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING > ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE > ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM > ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY > ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY > ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS > > Since it is absolutely impossible to describe any geometry without > agreeing on a specific set of coordinate system first, any astute > student of physics should easily understand the following. This > understanding is easily categorized under grade school level that is > under 6th grade. > > ** Geometry is invariant. The geometry is what it is regardless of > one's chosen coordinate system. <shrug> > > ** The coordinate system alone cannot possibly describe the invariant > geometry. > > ** Knowing the choice of coordinate system, it takes the so-called > metric to fully describe the geometry. > > Consider the following geometry, > > ** ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j > > Where > > ** ds = Invariant geometry > ** g_ij = Elements to the metric [g] > ** dq^i, dq^j = Coordinate > > It becomes ever so obvious that the metric [g] with elements g_ij > alone cannot possibly describe the geometry ds. For example, under > flat spacetime, > > ** [g1] = [1 0 0] > [0 1 0] > [0 0 1] with d[q] = [dx, dy, dz] > > ** [g2] = [1 0 0] > [0 r^2 cos^2(Latitude) 0] > [0 0 r^2] with d[q] = [dr, dLongitude, dLatitude] > > [g1] and [g2] are drastically different, but because of the also very > different choices of coordinate systems that the described geometry is > exactly the same. This concept has no problem to be understood by > grade school kids, but the so-called specialists are drastically at > lost due to the said Orwellian doctrines above. What a pity! > > 2,500 years in China, there existed two great philosophers. One was > Mozi. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi > > He preached inner perfection. As related to what we are discussing, > Mozi urged all to understand the subject by oneself. On the contrary, > Confucius was preaching one must rely on someone who is supposed to > possess higher intelligence to think for oneself. Well, in an ideal > world, that is fine, but in reality, the supposed specialists are as > dumb as the special rocks displaced in any museum. It becomes so > problematic to allow someone who is as dumb as or dumber than you are > to think for you. Well, China had the greatest technological > achievements, but they adopted Confucianism instead of Mozi's > teachings in the past few thousands of years. Guess what that got > themselves in today. > > The whole exercise revolves around how to deal with the infinite > numbers of solutions to the field equations that are static, > spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat. Schwarzschild had > years of research before the field equations were presented by Hilbert > and plagiarized by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. > Schwarzschild discovered that the field equations (namely the Ricci > tensor) can be drastically simplified if the metric yields a > determinant of -1. So, he sought out to covert the common spherically > symmetric polar coordinate system into one that would yield the > determinant of its metric to be of -1. After obtaining the solution, > he must covert it back and did so to the common spherically polar > coordinate system. The result was totally different from the > Schwarzschild metric. Schwarzschild's original solution does not > manifest black holes. It was Hilbert who discovered that indeed there > were an infinite solutions to the field equations. In doing so, he > wrote down the Schwarzschild metric. Disappointed, Hilbert then > walked away from all that nonsense and allowed Einstein the nitwit, > the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit. > > Well, as I understand it, Mr. Crothers discovered anther solution > below to the field equations that does not manifest black holes. He > is merely demonstrating that his solution is truer that the > Schwarzschild metric. > > ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) - (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 - (r + K)^2 dO^2 > > Where > > ** K = G M / c^2 > ** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2 > > In the meantime, the Schwarzschild metric below is also a solution. > > ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 K / r) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 K / r) - r^2 dO^2 > > There is no known boundary condition that allows one to settle on Mr. > Crother's metric over the Schwarzschild metric and vice versa. So, > Mr. community college teacher, you must be a follower of Confucius. > <shrug> > > > > > Is it known whether this person is actually a mathematician, a > > physicist, or a library assistant? And if neither of the former, then > > why is he constantly refererred to as an expert on General Relativity?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - OK sam, give me an hour or two to think about it. , PrivatePlayground, or abo. What is known about this Crothers? generally, the choice of cartesian is limited.... and slow your horses. To think for you? While it is true that many quarters have been longstanding, a house is supported by its own beams. It seems a limited application to apply the rules of cram to a house... and find that it not burst its seams. It would seem that your problem is an application of the law/rule. If your society has fallen to the realm of Mozi, or Confucius, then you have missed the true dynamic. The rule for all society is to take the best of the time, and not indoctrinate yourself silly. Hindsight proves useful in known cases, However, it seems the stick used to measure is the real issue. Consider a society that has chosen to take free liberties without restraint... where did that lead? In the best and most productive societies, I suspect it has to be about give and take... a little compromise at a time. An interesting result of allowing small compromises is that one extends ones limited world view. ALWAYS regarding the house, some things need to stand strong. if you think its an easy task, then I submit that your first small compromise to be total excess in restraint (or perhaps just as an exercise). We are after all, allowing ones right to choose; This doesn't even yet approach the subject of math.. i.e. There will always be moral delemas in the establishing of societal hierarchies Lets have a look at the institution of brotherhood... I remember ones societies most outstanding argument for society was " individual pursuits " being the governing factor for all encounters. In a society where individuals sort out a brotherhood for its privileges, theres no problem. Now add limited resources, and competition for favour, and now your governing principle begins to crack under the strain. It can even grow to the point of total structural breakdown. this in no way reveals you though, how could one discourse get to the real heart of the issue. But thats the other benefit of compromise, one will eventually reach it... On both sides of the equation. As for the math, ofcourse geometry is invariant, but structure is always forms of geometry. And the real art is in the structure. don't be so fast to only advocate the cartesian coordination.
From: eric gisse on 3 Jan 2010 17:30 kluto wrote: > Hi Stephen, we were just talking about you. That is not Crothers. Crothers has too much ego to hide behind a pseudonym like that. > My question actually wasn't about your inner perfection. > More modestly, it was about how to explain you to my students. > Perhaps as a professional mathematician, and in that case in > which field of specialty. Or as a physicist, and in that case > in which field of specialty. Or as a library assistant, and a > social science graduate. > Good that you are here to clear it up once and for all.
From: Koobee Wublee on 3 Jan 2010 23:20
On Jan 3, 6:57 am, Ace0f_5pades <m4de...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 9:20 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Yes, the so-called specialists in this subject get to their > > specialized positions by thoroughly exploiting the following Orwellian > > doctrines. > > > ** FAITH IS THEORY > > ** LYING IS TEACHING > > ** NITWIT IS GENIUS > > ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE > > ** PARADOX IS KOSHER > > ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH > > ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING > > ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE > > ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM > > ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY > > ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY > > ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS > > > Since it is absolutely impossible to describe any geometry without > > agreeing on a specific set of coordinate system first, any astute > > student of physics should easily understand the following. This > > understanding is easily categorized under grade school level that is > > under 6th grade. > > > ** Geometry is invariant. The geometry is what it is regardless of > > one's chosen coordinate system. <shrug> > > > ** The coordinate system alone cannot possibly describe the invariant > > geometry. > > > ** Knowing the choice of coordinate system, it takes the so-called > > metric to fully describe the geometry. > > > Consider the following geometry, > > > ** ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j > > > Where > > > ** ds = Invariant geometry > > ** g_ij = Elements to the metric [g] > > ** dq^i, dq^j = Coordinate > > > It becomes ever so obvious that the metric [g] with elements g_ij > > alone cannot possibly describe the geometry ds. For example, under > > flat spacetime, > > > ** [g1] = [1 0 0] > > [0 1 0] > > [0 0 1] with d[q] = [dx, dy, dz] > > > ** [g2] = [1 0 0] > > [0 r^2 cos^2(Latitude) 0] > > [0 0 r^2] with d[q] = [dr, dLongitude, dLatitude] > > > [g1] and [g2] are drastically different, but because of the also very > > different choices of coordinate systems that the described geometry is > > exactly the same. This concept has no problem to be understood by > > grade school kids, but the so-called specialists are drastically at > > lost due to the said Orwellian doctrines above. What a pity! > > > 2,500 years in China, there existed two great philosophers. One was > > Mozi. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi > > > He preached inner perfection. As related to what we are discussing, > > Mozi urged all to understand the subject by oneself. On the contrary, > > Confucius was preaching one must rely on someone who is supposed to > > possess higher intelligence to think for oneself. Well, in an ideal > > world, that is fine, but in reality, the supposed specialists are as > > dumb as the special rocks displaced in any museum. It becomes so > > problematic to allow someone who is as dumb as or dumber than you are > > to think for you. Well, China had the greatest technological > > achievements, but they adopted Confucianism instead of Mozi's > > teachings in the past few thousands of years. Guess what that got > > themselves in today. > > > The whole exercise revolves around how to deal with the infinite > > numbers of solutions to the field equations that are static, > > spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat. Schwarzschild had > > years of research before the field equations were presented by Hilbert > > and plagiarized by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. > > Schwarzschild discovered that the field equations (namely the Ricci > > tensor) can be drastically simplified if the metric yields a > > determinant of -1. So, he sought out to covert the common spherically > > symmetric polar coordinate system into one that would yield the > > determinant of its metric to be of -1. After obtaining the solution, > > he must covert it back and did so to the common spherically polar > > coordinate system. The result was totally different from the > > Schwarzschild metric. Schwarzschild's original solution does not > > manifest black holes. It was Hilbert who discovered that indeed there > > were an infinite solutions to the field equations. In doing so, he > > wrote down the Schwarzschild metric. Disappointed, Hilbert then > > walked away from all that nonsense and allowed Einstein the nitwit, > > the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit. > > > Well, as I understand it, Mr. Crothers discovered anther solution > > below to the field equations that does not manifest black holes. He > > is merely demonstrating that his solution is truer that the > > Schwarzschild metric. > > > ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) - (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 - (r + K)^2 dO^2 > > > Where > > > ** K = G M / c^2 > > ** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2 > > > In the meantime, the Schwarzschild metric below is also a solution. > > > ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 K / r) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 K / r) - r^2 dO^2 > > > There is no known boundary condition that allows one to settle on Mr. > > Crother's metric over the Schwarzschild metric and vice versa. So, > > Mr. community college teacher, you must be a follower of Confucius. > > <shrug> > > OK sam, give me an hour or two to think about it. , > PrivatePlayground, or abo. Sam, who? Private playground? I have no idea as to what you are talking about. <shrug> > What is known about this Crothers? Who cares? > generally, the choice of cartesian is limited.... and slow your > horses. We are on a very bad start. <shrug> > To think for you? No, thanks. The rest of nonsense snipped. |