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?


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.


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. Steve implied there is a boundary there, but I believe this can
be done such that the manifold is continuous there, just not smooth.

I think the manifold can be glued smoothly (one can write down a smooth
atlas on the quotient manifold) - it's the metric that has a "crease"
at the glued horizon. I posted an outline of an argument few minutes
ago. The problem is essentially with the Kruskal-Szekeres function
r(T,X) (the one given by the usual implicit equation) - it has a
nonzero slope at the horizon which would "crease" the metric there when
glued.

--
Jan Bielawski

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: compact manifold-submersion
    ... Take a smooth path ... W = f^wis a smooth manifold ... backwards (i.e., take the vector field -V, use it to map f^(-1) ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: compact manifold-submersion
    ... Take a smooth path ... f is transverse to w(oops, since f is a submersion, it's ... manifold N which is diffeomorphic to? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: compact manifold-submersion
    ... Take a smooth path ... backwards (i.e., take the vector field -V, use it to map f^(-1) ... manifold N which is diffeomorphic to? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: compact manifold-submersion
    ... Take a smooth path ... f is transverse to w(oops, since f is a submersion, it's ... W = f^wis a smooth manifold ... an equivalent vector field V on W (so that the dot product with V ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The Trouble with Physic(ist)s is that they are Not Even Wrong
    ... Kruskal manifold together. ... atlas on the quotient manifold) - it's the metric that has a "crease" ... at the glued horizon. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)