Re: What is known about this Crothers?
Koobee Wublee
> 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?
kluto
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.
kluto
Ace0f_5pades
>
> - 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.
eric gisse
> Hi Stephen, we were just talking about you.
That is not Crothers. Crothers has too much ego to hide behind a pseudonym
like that.
Koobee Wublee
> 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.
Koobee Wublee
> kluto 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.
>
> Stephen J. Crothers flunked out of his PhD program some years back, and
> carries one hell of a chip on his shoulder about it.
Did you make that up after yourself being a failure of education --- a
college dropout?
> How on earth did this guy's name come up in your searches?
You are so bitter being a college dropout. <shrug>
> > 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.
>
> His interpretations are asinine.
Your understanding is utterly wrong. <shrug>
> What's great about Crothers is that not only is he super obvious about his
> antisemitism,
I think anyone bringing up the word 'antisemitism' should be sued for
that. The ilk's like you cannot offer any more honorable arguments
and resort to punching below the belt. <shrug>
> as he took the time to publish a poorly sourced book it, but
> that he also takes the time to post correspondence that makes him look like
> a moron.
>
> http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Kerr.pdf
Mr. Kerr did not say very much in that response. There is nothing
that Mr. Kerr has said in that conversation that embarrassed Mr.
Crothers. <shrug>
> I am of like mind with Roy Kerr.
Yeah, being a vegetable who has said nothing useful. Now, please go
away.
> > 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?
>
> The only people who speak of Crothers in a positive manner are those who
> have an axe to grind against jews, relativity, Einstein specifically, or
> science in general.
Hmmm... It does not matter how you whine about your asinine
accusations. Einstein remains a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
Hell, even your Jew buddy --- that Russian dude who took over an
honest working farmer's land in Palestine is trashing Einstein more so
than any others. <shrug>
> You had to ask your question in a newsgroup that is
> largely populated by people who wouldn't even know their ass from a hole in
> the ground if they sat in on your lectures on differential geometry.
The academics are populated by the so-called specialists who cannot
understand the basics that grade school kids can. <shrug>
> If you want some decent resources for general relativity, stay the fuck off
> the internet. Assclowns like Crothers have all the time in the world and a
> platform to spout their idiocies.
That is not a wise advice. With the advent of internet, all skeletons
in the closets come out to tell their sides of stories since there are
always two sides to each story. You are still a college dropout. You
prefer to stay in vegetated state, remember? To possibly assess the
validity of one claim, you must examine as many evidences as
possible. <shrug>
> If you want to give your students a reasonable introduction to general
> relativity, I would suggest Sean Carroll's lecture notes on the subject.
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9712019
You got to be kidding. Very, very few kids would even understand the
mathematics in that. The lecture repeats all the errors brought up by
these self-styled physicists in the past hundred years. Since these
kids would not be able to understand all that, they would just resort
to mysticism just like yourself and the self-styled physicists in the
past hundred years. Remember the Orwellian teachings that Orwell had
so pointed out:
** 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
<shrug>