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 2 Jan 2010 05:11 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?
From: dlzc on 2 Jan 2010 12:10 Dear eric gisse: On Jan 2, 4:59 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: .... > Stephen J. Crothers flunked out of his PhD > program some years back, and carries one hell > of a chip on his shoulder about it. > > How on earth did this guy's name come up in > your searches? The same way EinsteinHoax's name comes up. They (or their followers) post a lot, and depending on search engine, obtain more hits. One of the reasons EinsteinHoax posts everywhere... cheap advertising. David A. Smith
From: eric gisse on 3 Jan 2010 00:17 kluto wrote: [...] > > So my original question seems hard to answer. Is Crothers a > library assistant essentially without any academic credentials > but pretending to be a mathematician and a physicist? Current occupation unknown but the pretend part is correct. > Or is he > actually a "professional mathematician", and if so, what is his > affiliation, where did he achieve his PhD, and what did he do He did not achieve his PhD. > in it? And/or is he a "physicist" without a PhD, and if so, > where did he achieve his Masters degree in physics, and in which > field?
From: Koobee Wublee on 3 Jan 2010 03:20 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?
From: kluto on 3 Jan 2010 05:37
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. |