Re: The Trouble with Physic(ist)s is that they are Not Even Wrong

Tom Roberts wrote:
LEJ Brouwer wrote:
I 'know' that the Schwarzschild
solution is wrong, and I also 'know' that my proposal must be either
correct, or if not completely correct at least on the right path.

The rest of us want to do physics, not whatever it is you are trying to
do. What God told you this? Why do you attempt to discuss such divine
revelations in a physics newsgroup?

Well, it is true that all knowledge ultimately stems from God, but it
is not the way in which the ideas are revealed, but the ideas
themselves which I am discussing. Having said, that I refer you to the
earlier thread entitled "Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis" in which I
give a possible physical interpretation of the opening lines of the Old
Testament.

I
can't tell you precisely how I know - it is just a very strong gut
feeling, and when I feel like this, I am usually right.

Here all you've shown is that you do not understand the MANY papers and
books that have been written about this. You merely re-hash old
objections long refuted, and old mistakes long corrected.

Maybe, maybe not.

I actually admire you a great deal. You are like a walking
encyclopaedia on gravity, yet you do not appear to be at all
pretentious or arrogant about it.

Yes, Steve Carlip is all of that.


BTW, could you please explain what you mean when you say that my
infinite cone has an 'edge'?

I assume you mean your attempt to glue the two exterior regions of the
Kruskal manifold together. The "edge" occurs when one follows an
infalling timelike geodesic -- when it reaches r=2M all of a sudden it
is impossible to compute the geodesic, because the metric is not C^2
there.

But it's the same metric - with dt -> -dt and dr -> -dr. My claim is
ridiculous because I am saying that the infalling particle just bounces
off the event horizon with time reversed, and I have not given any
satisfactory physical reason as to why this should happen, except to
note that the event horizon is a very strange place, so who knows what
can happen there?

Steve implied there is a boundary there, but I believe this can
be done such that the manifold is continuous there, just not smooth.
This is not a viable physical model because the Einstein field equation
must be valid everywhere, and it cannot be valid on either a boundary or
a locus where the metric is not C^2.

One can glue the two regions together there topologically.
But in doing that one must clearly distort the Kruskal
plane (i.e. the U-V coordinate plane) -- that is OK because
that can be a diffeomorphism that carries the metric
along; but at best the metric can be only C^0: for the metric
to be C^n its first n derivatives must all be equal at the
join, and the symmetry of the two exterior regions means they
must vanish; for this metric the first derivative is nonzero.

Note that on physical grounds the metric must be C^2 for two
different reasons: to satisfy the EFE, and for geodesic paths
to be C^1 (a worldline must have a 4-velocity everywhere).

["C^n" means continuously differentiable n times.]

[Hmmm. The U-V plane suppresses the two angles; I am not 100%
certain that those suppressed dimensions do not prevent
the gluing I describe; I assume that it is OK. You also
implicitly assumed this is OK.]



The trouble with physic(ist)s is not that we are "not even wrong", but
rather, from your point of view, the trouble is that we don't accept
your "strong gut feeling" as evidence of anything except the fact that
you are not doing science. <shrug>


Tom Roberts

There are many ways to solve a jigsaw puzzle. Just because I don't
start with the bottom left corner and work my rightwards and upwards
doesn't mean I won't solve it in the end. Besides, my method seems to
be much more efficient than yours - even if I do make more incorrect
guesses along the way. What is your definition of 'science' anyway?

- Sabbir.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Trouble with Physic(ist)s is that they are Not Even Wrong
    ... The rest of us want to do physics, not whatever it is you are trying to ... I assume you mean your attempt to glue the two exterior regions of the ... plane -- that is OK because ... The U-V plane suppresses the two angles; ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Trouble with Physic(ist)s is that they are Not Even Wrong
    ... The rest of us want to do physics, not whatever it is you are trying to ... I assume you mean your attempt to glue the two exterior regions of the ... plane (i.e. the U-V coordinate plane) -- that is OK because ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... | In article, Androcles ... and physics is the topic of discussion. ... | miles an hour. ... It's 6:00 pm, the plane leaves at 5:00 pm. Go and board the plane, you ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... | In article, Androcles ... and physics is the topic of discussion. ... | miles an hour. ... It's 6:00 pm, the plane leaves at 5:00 pm. Go and board the plane, you ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: NBC Loose Change
    ... If you walked into a physics class and offered that video as ... Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to go back to physics I. ... A large plane loaded with a lot of weight, ... momentum was converted into heat so as to vaporize the plane? ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)