Finite or infinite universe?
Mike
infinite or finite universe and in relation to GR?
In other words, does the evidence lean towards an infinite or finite
universe and in what sense and scales? For example, one possibility is
infinite space with finite mass distribution. Another is infinite
universe in dimensions but infinite mass, etc. Anyone?
Mike
Enes
IMUB, at first was internal balanced infinite 3D space, which has a
local mistake.
Now there is finite zone of mass/light/radiation and infinite space
behind.
]ohn from Enes
John Bailey
wrote:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
"Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and
balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and
DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across.
Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy
prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very
high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat
with only a 2% margin of error."
For a contrarian point of view for the non-specialist, try:
http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/0704.3374
Geometry and Topology in Relativistic Cosmology
by Jean-Pierre Luminet
"a fair portion of the academic community believes the WMAP data has
ruled out multiply-connected models. However, at least the
second part of the claim is wrong." and "The new release of WMAP data
(Spergel et al., 2006), integrating two additional years of
observation with reduced uncertainty, strengthened the evidence for an
abnormally low quadrupole and other features which do not match with
the infinite flat space model (this explains the unexpected delay in
the delivery of this second release, originally announced for February
2004)."
(If multiply-connected, the universe might not only be finite but only
80% of the volume of the observable universe (namely the volume of
the last scattering surface). 43 Gpc!
The book: The Poincare Conjecture by Donal o'Shea
http://tinyurl.com/yvg2v6
is a useful account of the history of the mathematics of the possibly
hyperspherical shape of the universe.
John
Mike
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr>
> wrote:
>
> >How do the measurements (WMAP, etc.) fit with the notion of an
> >infinite or finite universe and in relation to GR?
>
> >In other words, does the evidence lean towards an infinite or finite
> >universe and in what sense and scales? For example, one possibility is
> >infinite space with finite mass distribution. Another is infinite
> >universe in dimensions but infinite mass, etc. Anyone?
>
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
> "Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and
> balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and
> DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across.
> Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy
> prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very
> high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat
> with only a 2% margin of error."
Thnaks Johh for the info and links. I find it peculiar but the NASA
site does not under the question the pose directly. Is it infinite or
not? Flat is flat but does not necessarily mean infinite.
>
> For a contrarian point of view for the non-specialist, try:http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/0704.3374
> Geometry and Topology in Relativistic Cosmology
> by Jean-Pierre Luminet
Interesting paper. I have heard some reasons as to why the
dodecahedron hypothesis has failed but I do not recall them.
Mike
> "a fair portion of the academic community believes the WMAP data has
> ruled out multiply-connected models. However, at least the
> second part of the claim is wrong." and "The new release of WMAP data
> (Spergel et al., 2006), integrating two additional years of
> observation with reduced uncertainty, strengthened the evidence for an
> abnormally low quadrupole and other features which do not match with
> the infinite flat space model (this explains the unexpected delay in
> the delivery of this second release, originally announced for February
> 2004)."
>
> (If multiply-connected, the universe might not only be finite but only
> 80% of the volume of the observable universe (namely the volume of
> the last scattering surface). 43 Gpc!
>
> The book: The Poincare Conjecture by Donal o'Sheahttp://tinyurl.com/yvg2v6
Paul Mays
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:b42734b4-254c-4925...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Finite. Space can only exist between the furthest distribution
of Physical matter. Past that you have No Matter and since all
rules of physics only apply to matter in relative motion to other
matter, once you attempt to conceive of Energy in the absence
of matter the Mental Constructs of Infinity, Space, Paradox
cease to exist.
John Bailey
wrote:
>On Apr 26, 8:40 am, John Bailey <john_bai...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr>
>> wrote:
>> For a contrarian point of view for the non-specialist, try:http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/0704.3374
>> Geometry and Topology in Relativistic Cosmology
>> by Jean-Pierre Luminet
>
>Interesting paper. I have heard some reasons as to why the
>dodecahedron hypothesis has failed but I do not recall them.
Luminet's papers answer many of the criticisms of the dodecahedron
model, causing me to move from thinking it was totally implausable to
"well, if that's what the data shows, I could believe it"
Of course the dodecahedron model is only one of the multiply-connected
topologies which are to be considered. I am personally attracted to
the simplest which is the 3D hypersurface of a 4D hypersphere.
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/interests/sci.astro/3d_4s_skymap.html
Also, note the Princeton WMAP article may be somewhat dated. (I just
retrieved it from their website but it referenced old data.) It may
be worthwhile to take an up to date snapshot of the subject to see
what new data, analysis, and thinking has ocurred recently. After
all, a couple of years in a 14 billion year old universe makes a big
difference.
John
Huang
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 26, 8:40 am, John Bailey <john_bai...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr>
> >> wrote:
> >> For a contrarian point of view for the non-specialist, try:http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/0704.3374
> >> Geometry and Topology in Relativistic Cosmology
> >> by Jean-Pierre Luminet
>
Indeterminate.
Case [1]
Even if it were infinite, one could not possibly hope to "prove this"
through observation. This would require an infinite amount of
observing which cannot happen.
Case [2]
Assume it is finite. Since you cannot possibly observe anything
outside of it, there is no way to "prove by observation" that nothing
is out there.
Paradox is alive and well in nature and there's not much we can do to
get rid of it, except pretend that it's not there.
Paul Mays
"Huang" <huangx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b6552648-52e0-471e...@w74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Indeterminate.
Mays's Axiom's
1) There are no infinities... are but illusion that occurs when mathematical
constructs fail due to scale...
2) There are no paradox's ... Are but a mental construct in the absence
of all known rules....
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
The closed universe curve is 4 dimensional hypersphere.
Mitch Raemsch
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
The closed universe curves in the 4th dimension.
Tom Roberts
> How do the measurements (WMAP, etc.) fit with the notion of an
> infinite or finite universe and in relation to GR?
At present, the best measurements on a cosmological scale show that the
universe is spatially flat to within a few percent. And no evidence is
seen for multiple images of a single object or region.
The implications directly affect answers to your question. If a) the FRW
manifolds of General Relativity are a good model of the universe at
cosmological distances, and b) the universe is EXACTLY spatially flat,
then it cannot be spatially compact. However if there is a small
positive spatial curvature, then it could be compact (with a small
negative spatial curvature it still cannot be spatially compact).
So the measurements and GR are consistent with the universe being
spatially infinite. But they cannot rule out the universe being
spatially closed with a scale beyond our cosmological horizon (~14 giga
lightyears).
If GR is not a good model of the universe at cosmological scales, then
we don't know much until a better model can be formulated. While there
are phenomena that bring the validity of GR into question, none have
been established to the point of being generally accepted as a
refutation of GR.
Tom Roberts
Sam Wormley
Thanks!
Jeff▲Relf
“ ...cosmological horizon ( ~14 giga lightyears ). ”.
At this point in cosmological time ( i.e. comoving time )
the comoving distance to the cosmological horizon
is 45 giga lightyears away because, since the birth of
the Cosmic Microwave Background ( a blackbody ) 13.7 giga years ago,
our visible Universe has cooled and thinned by “ z == 1,088 ”
to 2.725 kelvin ( from 2,965 kelvin ).
P.S.
I see people who hate General Relativity and Einstein because,
in their twisted daydreams, Einstein is yet another Jewish bogeyman.
But I don't see these people proposing a better way to model,
say, the tiny 4-D gravitational field of a billiard ball.
As I've recently stated..
We can't imagine nature as she truly is.
We can't imagine ( nor measure precisely )
the tiny 4-D gravitational field of, say, a billiard ball.
Worse.. the field is invisible, infinite in extent, and unblockable.
For example, we could toss the IPK ( International Prototype Kilogram )
into the trash if we could measure its gravitational field
precisely ( and consistently ).
The NIST in Colorado is hoping to do just that by
using a high-precision absolute gravimeter ( accelerometer )
and an ultra-precise weighing ( using a Watt balance, in a vacuum ).
Einstein said:
“ I see a pattern,
but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern.
I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker.
The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions,
so how can it conceive of a God,
before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one ? ”.
-- “ The Expanded Quotable Einstein ”,
Princeton University Press, 2000 Page 208
From Einstein's, " Ether and the Theory of Relativity " ( 1920 )
quoted at " http://TUHH.DE/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html ":
" But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The idea of motion may not be applied to it. ".
Petkov ( 2005 ) has this to say:
“ This paper pursues two aims.
First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as
a timelessly existing four-dimensional world,
is the only one that is consistent with special relativity.
Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve
the debate on whether the world is
three-dimensional or four-dimensional.
The argument advanced in the paper is that
if the world were three-dimensional
the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly
the experiments confirming them would be impossible. ”.
-- “ Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ? ”
http://Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/
Uncle Al
[snip 73 lines of crap]
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
zzbu...@netscape.net
> You wrote:
>
> " ...cosmological horizon ( ~14 giga lightyears ). ".
>
> At this point in cosmological time ( i.e. comoving time )
> the comoving distance to the cosmological horizon
> is 45 giga lightyears away because, since the birth of
>
> the Cosmic Microwave Background ( a blackbody ) 13.7 giga years ago,
> our visible Universe has cooled and thinned by " z == 1,088 "
> to 2.725 kelvin ( from 2,965 kelvin ).
>
> P.S.
> I see people who hate General Relativity and Einstein because,
> in their twisted daydreams, Einstein is yet another Jewish bogeyman.
>
> But I don't see these people proposing a better way to model,
> say, the tiny 4-D gravitational field of a billiard ball.
> As I've recently stated..
>
> We can't imagine nature as she truly is.
>
> We can't imagine ( nor measure precisely )
> the tiny 4-D gravitational field of, say, a billiard ball.
> Worse.. the field is invisible, infinite in extent, and unblockable.
But so is the is electro-magnetic field of the pool table surface,
With is still mostly why not many people with brains and two cents
worth of engineering ability are really concerned with scientists
moronic stories about infinite invisilbe gravity fields, when they
got
robots, lasers, CD, DVD, and satellites to build.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> Mike wrote:
> > How do the measurements (WMAP, etc.) fit with the notion of an
> > infinite or finite universe and in relation to GR?
> At present, the best measurements on a cosmological scale show that the
> universe is spatially flat to within a few percent. And no evidence is
> seen for multiple images of a single object or region.
> The implications directly affect answers to your question. If a) the FRW
> manifolds of General Relativity are a good model of the universe at
> cosmological distances, and b) the universe is EXACTLY spatially flat,
> then it cannot be spatially compact.
This is not quite right. A spatially flat universe can still have the
topology of a three-torus, which is spatially compact.
There are a number of searches underway for nontrivial topology.
including this possibility. So far, there is no evidence for anything
except an infinite, spatially noncompact universe, but nontrivial
topology can't yet be excluded.
Steve Carlip
Mike
Thanks for the answer but my question now is why should we need a
model to determine if it is infinite or finite? Actually, that would
be a determination of what the model implies and not what actually is.
Mike
hanson
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4815F2FD...@hate.spam.net... to
>
Jeff?Relf who wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/29bd47d88be1423f
[snip 73 lines of crap]
>
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
>
that (link above) shows a perfect characterization of rect-Al's
cyber existence... Good choice. You are an honest dude, Al.
>
rect-Al wrote:
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
>
so, rect-Al shows here how he does it competently and accurately:
<http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg>
>
rect-Al wrote:
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
>
rect-Al refers by "others" to himself & shows how to recognize him:
<http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg>
>
rect-Al wrote:
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
>
hanson wrote:
and so, rect-Al shows here what he does in order not to fail:
<http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg>
>
rect-Al wrote:
Idiot.
>
hanson wrote:
rect-Al discovered his "idiot mantra" about himself in here:
<http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg>.
recty-Al constantly checks and repeats it to spread the good
news about himself:... he, rect-Al being the mother of all idiots.
>
Thanks for the laughs, schmuck... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Mike
Does infinite, spatially noncompact universe, imply also infinite mass
and how does that fair with GR?
Mike
Tom Roberts
> In sci.physics Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> a) the FRW
>> manifolds of General Relativity are a good model of the universe at
>> cosmological distances, and b) the universe is EXACTLY spatially flat,
>> then it cannot be spatially compact.
>
> This is not quite right. A spatially flat universe can still have the
> topology of a three-torus, which is spatially compact.
Hmmm. I know that a flat 3-space can have the topology of a 3-torus. But
I thought the spatially-flat FRW manifold was unique [#], with the
spatial topology R^3. Is it possible to "cut and fold" that manifold to
become spatially compact, and still satisfy the field equation? IOW: are
there actually multiple flat FRW manifolds with different topologies?
[#] up to isometry.
Topologically, I have no doubt that the spatial submanifold can be cut
into a cube with opposite faces identified, thus creating a flat
3-torus. Such manipulations have no effect on the validity of the field
equation except possibly in neighborhoods of the joins, and for the
initial consistency conditions the field equation includes. The original
manifold has sufficient spacelike Killing vectors that I don't think the
neighborhoods of the joins have any problems, so this is really a
question about those initial consistency conditions, and whether the
periodic boundary conditions of a 3-torus can satisfy them. Perhaps
those same Killing vectors imply this, but that is well beyond my
knowledge of GR.
> There are a number of searches underway for nontrivial topology.
> including this possibility. So far, there is no evidence for anything
> except an infinite, spatially noncompact universe, but nontrivial
> topology can't yet be excluded.
Yes. And given the existence of a cosmological horizon, I doubt that
nontrivial topology can ever be excluded (it could be closed at a scale
well beyond our horizon, and thus be invisible to us).
Tom Roberts
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > In sci.physics Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> a) the FRW
> >> manifolds of General Relativity are a good model of the universe at
> >> cosmological distances, and b) the universe is EXACTLY spatially flat,
> >> then it cannot be spatially compact.
> > This is not quite right. A spatially flat universe can still have the
> > topology of a three-torus, which is spatially compact.
> Hmmm. I know that a flat 3-space can have the topology of a 3-torus. But
> I thought the spatially-flat FRW manifold was unique [#], with the
> spatial topology R^3.
No. It's locally unique, but the field equations don't determine the
global topology.
> Is it possible to "cut and fold" that manifold to
> become spatially compact, and still satisfy the field equation?
Yes. At a given cosmological time, one can take a fundamental
domain in the form of a parallelepiped and identify opposite faces.
This creates no singularities, and no new curvature. Then simply
evolve forward and backward in time.
> IOW: are
> there actually multiple flat FRW manifolds with different topologies?
Yes. There are actually a number of different possible identifications
(ten in all, six orientable and four nonorientable).
> [#] up to isometry.
> Topologically, I have no doubt that the spatial submanifold can be cut
> into a cube with opposite faces identified, thus creating a flat
> 3-torus. Such manipulations have no effect on the validity of the field
> equation except possibly in neighborhoods of the joins, and for the
> initial consistency conditions the field equation includes. The original
> manifold has sufficient spacelike Killing vectors that I don't think the
> neighborhoods of the joins have any problems,
Right.
> so this is really a
> question about those initial consistency conditions, and whether the
> periodic boundary conditions of a 3-torus can satisfy them. Perhaps
> those same Killing vectors imply this,
They do.
Steve Carlip
Tom Roberts
Interesting. Thanks!
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
> carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > This is not quite right. A spatially flat universe can still have the
> > topology of a three-torus, which is spatially compact.
Boy, you guys are amazing. So, we have spatially curved, spatially
flat, and now spatially compact? What other spatially possibilities
are there?
> Hmmm. I know that a flat 3-space can have the topology of a 3-torus. But
> I thought the spatially-flat FRW manifold was unique [#], with the
> spatial topology R^3.
The Schwarzschild metric allows both gravitational time dilation and
curvature in space, but the FLRW metric only allows a curvature in
space. If you believe in the Schwarzschild metric, the FLRW metric
must be false. On the other hand, if you believe in the FLRW metric,
the Schwarzschild metric must be false. Since there is no Newtonian
limit for the FLRW metric, this metric must be wrong.
> Is it possible to "cut and fold" that manifold to
> become spatially compact, and still satisfy the field equation? IOW: are
> there actually multiple flat FRW manifolds with different topologies?
>
> [#] up to isometry.
Oh, I see. Now, spacetime can be cut just like a diamond. Brilliant!
> Topologically, I have no doubt that the spatial submanifold can be cut
> into a cube with opposite faces identified, thus creating a flat
> 3-torus. Such manipulations have no effect on the validity of the field
> equation except possibly in neighborhoods of the joins, and for the
> initial consistency conditions the field equation includes. The original
> manifold has sufficient spacelike Killing vectors that I don't think the
> neighborhoods of the joins have any problems, so this is really a
> question about those initial consistency conditions, and whether the
> periodic boundary conditions of a 3-torus can satisfy them. Perhaps
> those same Killing vectors imply this, but that is well beyond my
> knowledge of GR.
Given the complexity in the field equations, it is not likely for you
to pick one from thin air to satisfy as the solution to the field
equations. <shrug>
> > There are a number of searches underway for nontrivial topology.
> > including this possibility. So far, there is no evidence for anything
> > except an infinite, spatially noncompact universe, but nontrivial
> > topology can't yet be excluded.
>
> Yes. And given the existence of a cosmological horizon, I doubt that
> nontrivial topology can ever be excluded (it could be closed at a scale
> well beyond our horizon, and thus be invisible to us).
Yes, why not? You (plural) allow topology to find a zoo-ful of
invisible pico-scopic particles. The same tool should also yield the
macroscopic structure of the cosmos. This might be the end of
traditional mathematics in physics if you consider topology as a
discipline of mathematics. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 28, 4:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > This is not quite right. A spatially flat universe can still have the
> > > topology of a three-torus, which is spatially compact.
>
> Boy, you guys are amazing. So, we have spatially curved, spatially
> flat, and now spatially compact? What other spatially possibilities
> are there?
>
> > Hmmm. I know that a flat 3-space can have the topology of a 3-torus. But
> > I thought the spatially-flat FRW manifold was unique [#], with the
> > spatial topology R^3.
>
> The Schwarzschild metric allows both gravitational time dilation and
> curvature in space, but the FLRW metric only allows a curvature in
> space. If you believe in the Schwarzschild metric, the FLRW metric
> must be false. On the other hand, if you believe in the FLRW metric,
> the Schwarzschild metric must be false. Since there is no Newtonian
> limit for the FLRW metric, this metric must be wrong.
Nice - now you appear to believe there is only one solution to general
relativity.
[snip]
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hypersphere.
Mike
> > How do the measurements (WMAP, etc.) fit with the notion of an
> > infinite or finite universe and in relation to GR?
>
> At present, the best measurements on a cosmological scale show that the
> universe is spatially flat to within a few percent. And no evidence is
> seen for multiple images of a single object or region.
Is this paper then outdated?
http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/0704.3374
Mike
Koobee Wublee
> On Apr 28, 10:59 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Boy, you guys are amazing. So, we have spatially curved, spatially
> > flat, and now spatially compact? What other spatially possibilities
> > are there?
Spatially curved, spatially flat, spatially compact, why not spatially
spongy or spatially elastic? Only in the minds of topologists.
> > The Schwarzschild metric allows both gravitational time dilation and
> > curvature in space, but the FLRW metric only allows a curvature in
> > space. If you believe in the Schwarzschild metric, the FLRW metric
> > must be false. On the other hand, if you believe in the FLRW metric,
> > the Schwarzschild metric must be false. Since there is no Newtonian
> > limit for the FLRW metric, this metric must be wrong.
>
> Nice - now you appear to believe there is only one solution to general
> relativity.
We have been through this before. My position has always been that
the field equations yield an infinite number of solutions where each
solution is independent of the others. Each solution describes a
completely different geometry. Thus, each solution describes a
universe. The Schwarzschild solution is not unique. It manifests
black holes. There are other solutions that do not manifest black
holes but also degenerate into Newtonian limit. One such example is
Schwarzschild’s original solution which is not the same as the
Schwarzschild metric. <shrug>
If you BELIEVE IN the Schwarzschild metric and Schwarzschild’s
original solution are the same, you have also to explain how the FLRW
metric is the same as the Schwarzschild metric. I don’t think you
can. Thus, you have to accept the Schwarzschild metric is not the
same as Schwarzschild’s original solution. <CHECKMATE ONCE AGAIN>
> > Now, spacetime can be cut just like a diamond. Brilliant!
“Diamond in the sky hiding in spacetime...”
> > You (plural) allow topology to find a zoo-ful of invisible
> > pico-scopic particles. The same tool should also yield the
> > macroscopic structure of the cosmos. This might be the end of
> > traditional mathematics in physics if you consider topology as a
> > discipline of mathematics. <shrug>
The universe is created in the collective mind of topology. It allows
the topologists to achieve godhood. Thus, after separating their ways
during the renaissance, science and religion finally come back
together.
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 29, 12:17 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:59 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Boy, you guys are amazing. So, we have spatially curved, spatially
> > > flat, and now spatially compact? What other spatially possibilities
> > > are there?
>
> Spatially curved, spatially flat, spatially compact, why not spatially
> spongy or spatially elastic? Only in the minds of topologists.
They all have well defined meanings. Don't be mad because you don't
know what they are.
>
> > > The Schwarzschild metric allows both gravitational time dilation and
> > > curvature in space, but the FLRW metric only allows a curvature in
> > > space. If you believe in the Schwarzschild metric, the FLRW metric
> > > must be false. On the other hand, if you believe in the FLRW metric,
> > > the Schwarzschild metric must be false. Since there is no Newtonian
> > > limit for the FLRW metric, this metric must be wrong.
>
> > Nice - now you appear to believe there is only one solution to general
> > relativity.
>
> We have been through this before. My position has always been that
> the field equations yield an infinite number of solutions where each
> solution is independent of the others.
Yes, we _have_ been through this before.
There are an infinite number until boundary and/or initial conditions
are imposed, in which case there is a unique solution. PDE and ODE
uniqueness theorems are quite explicit on the subject.
> Each solution describes a
> completely different geometry. Thus, each solution describes a
> universe. The Schwarzschild solution is not unique.
Often stated but never proven. Every time you crafted a "non-unique"
solution for conditions Birkhoff's theorem assumes, I was able to
obtain a coordinate transformation back to Schwarzschild. Since you
still don't understand what it means for the metric to be a tensor, it
makes sense that you still get confused over this basic point.
> It manifests
> black holes. There are other solutions that do not manifest black
> holes but also degenerate into Newtonian limit.
So...?
> One such example is
> Schwarzschild’s original solution which is not the same as the
> Schwarzschild metric. <shrug>
-1, Wrong. This has been explained to you before - Schwarzschild's
original solution is simply a translation of the modern Schwarzschild
solution. The explicit coordinate transformation between the two was
given to you, and the calculation showing they are equivalent was
performed. You have no excuse for being that ignorant.
>
> If you BELIEVE IN the Schwarzschild metric and Schwarzschild’s
> original solution are the same, you have also to explain how the FLRW
> metric is the same as the Schwarzschild metric.
Why?
The Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution, the FRW solution is
not. Why would they be the same?
> I don’t think you
> can. Thus, you have to accept the Schwarzschild metric is not the
> same as Schwarzschild’s original solution. <CHECKMATE ONCE AGAIN>
No, I don't - the explicit transformation has been given to you. Not
my fault or problem that you don't know how to transform the
components of a tensor from one coordinate system to another.
[snip remaining stupidity]
Koobee Wublee
> On Apr 29, 9:39 am, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
> > Spatially curved, spatially flat, spatially compact, why not spatially
> > spongy or spatially elastic? Only in the minds of topologists.
>
> They all have well defined meanings. Don't be mad because you don't
> know what they are.
Sure, they all do just like every verse in the bible has at least one
interpreted meaning. <shrug>
> > We have been through this before. My position has always been that
> > the field equations yield an infinite number of solutions where each
> > solution is independent of the others.
>
> There are an infinite number until boundary and/or initial conditions
> are imposed,
What are these boundary and/or initial conditions?
> in which case there is a unique solution. PDE and ODE
> uniqueness theorems are quite explicit on the subject.
This is utter bullsh*t. You were told of these and don’t even bother
to understand it. <shrug>
> > Each solution describes a
> > completely different geometry. Thus, each solution describes a
> > universe. The Schwarzschild solution is not unique.
>
> Often stated but never proven.
The solutions yielded by a set of differential equations have no more
extra meaning than the solutions of a quadratic equation such as (x^2
- 3 x + 2 = 0). In this case, x = 1 or 2. Unless you can prove (1 =
2), the solutions are independent of each other. However, 1 is a
transform from 2, and 2 is a transform from 1. Even if they are a
transform of each other, 1 is still not 2, and 2 is still not 1. This
should be a very basic mathematical concept, but I see that it bothers
and most physicists. Why? You have an excuse because you are a multi-
year super senior. How about the professors and PhD’s? Correct me
if I am wrong. The 1st year algebra student should have already
understood this very simple but basic mathematical concept. <shrug>
> Every time you crafted a "non-unique"
> solution for conditions Birkhoff's theorem assumes, I was able to
> obtain a coordinate transformation back to Schwarzschild.
This has never been done. You are dreaming again. <shrug>
> Since you
> still don't understand what it means for the metric to be a tensor, it
> makes sense that you still get confused over this basic point.
As I said many times over, the metric cannot be a tensor. It is
merely a matrix. That is because the geometry must be invariant. To
describe the geometry, you need the metric and the coordinate system.
Since coordinate system depends on each observer, the metric must vary
with the coordinate system to yield an invariant geometry. This very
basic concept in geometry and methodology of experimentation still
eludes you and all physicists. The nonsense about the metric being
invariant has been around since Ricci’s time. Mysticism is always
wisdom in disguise, is it not?
> > It manifests
> > black holes. There are other solutions that do not manifest black
> > holes but also degenerate into Newtonian limit.
>
> So...?
So what? Black holes or no black holes are serious matters. <shrug>
> > One such example is
> > Schwarzschild’s original solution which is not the same as the
> > Schwarzschild metric. <shrug>
>
> -1, Wrong. This has been explained to you before - Schwarzschild's
> original solution is simply a translation of the modern Schwarzschild
> solution. The explicit coordinate transformation between the two was
> given to you, and the calculation showing they are equivalent was
> performed. You have no excuse for being that ignorant.
What gives you the right to call the Schwarzschild metric more unique
than Schwarzschild’s original metric? Why is Schwarzschild metric not
a transformation of Schwarzschild’s original metric instead?
> > If you BELIEVE IN the Schwarzschild metric and Schwarzschild’s
> > original solution are the same, you have also to explain how the FLRW
> > metric is the same as the Schwarzschild metric.
>
> Why?
Why not?
> The Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution, the FRW solution is
> not. Why would they be the same?
So? Thus, the interior of the sun behaves like an FLRW metric, right?
> > I don’t think you
> > can. Thus, you have to accept the Schwarzschild metric is not the
> > same as Schwarzschild’s original solution. <CHECKMATE ONCE AGAIN>
>
> No, I don't - the explicit transformation has been given to you.
You don’t even know how to transform from Schwarzschild’s original
solution to the Schwarzschild metric. <shrug>
> Not
> my fault or problem that you don't know how to transform the
> components of a tensor from one coordinate system to another.
Yes, it is not your fault that you are a multi-year super senior. I
seem to have heard of that excuse many times over though. Since the
metric cannot be a tensor, there is no point of transforming the
metric into something that is still the same metric. <shrug>
> > The universe is created in the collective mind of topology. It allows
> > the topologists to achieve godhood. Thus, after separating their ways
> > during the renaissance, science and religion finally come back
> > together.
You are so sore loser. You have been checkmated many times over and
still refuse to accept defeat. That is also why you are still a super
senior. Is the University of Alaska really that difficult to get a
degree from? I thought they pay you to go to college over there.
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 29, 2:21 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 9:39 am, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
> > > Spatially curved, spatially flat, spatially compact, why not spatially
> > > spongy or spatially elastic? Only in the minds of topologists.
>
> > They all have well defined meanings. Don't be mad because you don't
> > know what they are.
>
> Sure, they all do just like every verse in the bible has at least one
> interpreted meaning. <shrug>
Again, not my fault you don't know what the words mean. Take a course
in differential geometry or topology some time.
>
> > > We have been through this before. My position has always been that
> > > the field equations yield an infinite number of solutions where each
> > > solution is independent of the others.
>
> > There are an infinite number until boundary and/or initial conditions
> > are imposed,
>
> What are these boundary and/or initial conditions?
Depends. Spherical symmetry is an initial condition, for example.
>
> > in which case there is a unique solution. PDE and ODE
> > uniqueness theorems are quite explicit on the subject.
>
> This is utter bullsh*t. You were told of these and don’t even bother
> to understand it. <shrug>
Can't you do better than abject denial, kooby? Open an ODE textbook
[Boyce & DiPrima] or a PDE textbook [DuChateau & Zachmann] and read
the sections that discuss uniqueness theorems and what is required to
satisfy them.
>
> > > Each solution describes a
> > > completely different geometry. Thus, each solution describes a
> > > universe. The Schwarzschild solution is not unique.
>
> > Often stated but never proven.
>
> The solutions yielded by a set of differential equations have no more
> extra meaning than the solutions of a quadratic equation such as (x^2
> - 3 x + 2 = 0). In this case, x = 1 or 2. Unless you can prove (1 =
> 2), the solutions are independent of each other. However, 1 is a
> transform from 2, and 2 is a transform from 1. Even if they are a
> transform of each other, 1 is still not 2, and 2 is still not 1. This
> should be a very basic mathematical concept, but I see that it bothers
> and most physicists. Why?
What are you talking about? One is not a "transform" of two - the
numbers are scalars.
Please don't pretend that you have your finger on the pulse of physics
when you don't understand the base concepts involved here.
> You have an excuse because you are a multi-
> year super senior. How about the professors and PhD’s? Correct me
> if I am wrong. The 1st year algebra student should have already
> understood this very simple but basic mathematical concept. <shrug>
>
> > Every time you crafted a "non-unique"
> > solution for conditions Birkhoff's theorem assumes, I was able to
> > obtain a coordinate transformation back to Schwarzschild.
>
> This has never been done. You are dreaming again. <shrug>
Progress beyond denial, kooby. You are fooling nobody.
Go back and read the archives.
>
> > Since you
> > still don't understand what it means for the metric to be a tensor, it
> > makes sense that you still get confused over this basic point.
>
> As I said many times over, the metric cannot be a tensor.
As you were told many times, you are wrong.
> It is merely a matrix.
A matrix is just an ordered set of numbers. A tensor obeys special
properties that happen to be shared with rank 2 matrices. Isn't
learning fun?
> That is because the geometry must be invariant. To
> describe the geometry, you need the metric and the coordinate system.
To describe the geometry _in a particular coordinate basis_ you need
to project the metric upon a coordinate basis.
> Since coordinate system depends on each observer, the metric must vary
> with the coordinate system to yield an invariant geometry. This very
> basic concept in geometry and methodology of experimentation still
> eludes you and all physicists. The nonsense about the metric being
> invariant has been around since Ricci’s time. Mysticism is always
> wisdom in disguise, is it not?
You wax poetic about a subject you have spent years arguing about but
have never understood. The word invariance - like tensor - has a
specific mathematical meaning which you simply do not understand.
>
> > > It manifests
> > > black holes. There are other solutions that do not manifest black
> > > holes but also degenerate into Newtonian limit.
>
> > So...?
>
> So what? Black holes or no black holes are serious matters. <shrug>
Again...so? Different solutions have different properties. I struggle
to understand why you think this is relevant.
>
> > > One such example is
> > > Schwarzschild’s original solution which is not the same as the
> > > Schwarzschild metric. <shrug>
>
> > -1, Wrong. This has been explained to you before - Schwarzschild's
> > original solution is simply a translation of the modern Schwarzschild
> > solution. The explicit coordinate transformation between the two was
> > given to you, and the calculation showing they are equivalent was
> > performed. You have no excuse for being that ignorant.
>
> What gives you the right to call the Schwarzschild metric more unique
> than Schwarzschild’s original metric? Why is Schwarzschild metric not
> a transformation of Schwarzschild’s original metric instead?
The modern Schwarzschild solution is preferred because surfaces of
constant r have areas of 4pir^2.
Do you know how to compute the surface area of a surface of a constant
coordinate value yet?
>
> > > If you BELIEVE IN the Schwarzschild metric and Schwarzschild’s
> > > original solution are the same, you have also to explain how the FLRW
> > > metric is the same as the Schwarzschild metric.
>
> > Why?
>
> Why not?
>
> > The Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution, the FRW solution is
> > not. Why would they be the same?
>
> So? Thus, the interior of the sun behaves like an FLRW metric, right?
Is the sun expanding as a function of time? Is the sun homogeneous and
isotropic?
If you can say "yes" to all of these, then yes it does.
>
> > > I don’t think you
> > > can. Thus, you have to accept the Schwarzschild metric is not the
> > > same as Schwarzschild’s original solution. <CHECKMATE ONCE AGAIN>
>
> > No, I don't - the explicit transformation has been given to you.
>
> You don’t even know how to transform from Schwarzschild’s original
> solution to the Schwarzschild metric. <shrug>
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0503095.pdf
Go learn something.
>
> > Not
> > my fault or problem that you don't know how to transform the
> > components of a tensor from one coordinate system to another.
>
> Yes, it is not your fault that you are a multi-year super senior. I
> seem to have heard of that excuse many times over though. Since the
> metric cannot be a tensor, there is no point of transforming the
> metric into something that is still the same metric. <shrug>
I will never cease to be amused by your utter certainty that you
understand the subject despite not being able to get even the basic
concepts right, much less compute something.
Since we are clearly revisiting old ground, let us go back to the last
time. It'll make the conversation go faster.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/51e774c2099e11b0
>
> > > The universe is created in the collective mind of topology. It allows
> > > the topologists to achieve godhood. Thus, after separating their ways
> > > during the renaissance, science and religion finally come back
> > > together.
>
> You are so sore loser. You have been checkmated many times over and
> still refuse to accept defeat. That is also why you are still a super
> senior. Is the University of Alaska really that difficult to get a
> degree from? I thought they pay you to go to college over there.
I don't discuss personal matters with assholes.
Koobee Wublee
> On Apr 29, 8:56 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Sure, they all do just like every verse in the bible has at least one
> > interpreted meaning. <shrug>
>
> Again, not my fault you don't know what the words mean. Take a course
> in differential geometry or topology some time.
Again, every single verse in the bible has several different meanings
depending on the politics. <shrug>
> > What are these boundary and/or initial conditions?
>
> Depends. Spherical symmetry is an initial condition, for example.
They are all spherical! All use the good old spherically symmetric
polar coordinate system. Want to try another bullsh*t answer?
> > This is utter bullsh*t. You were told of these and don’t even bother
> > to understand it. <shrug>
>
> Can't you do better than abject denial, kooby? Open an ODE textbook
> [Boyce & DiPrima] or a PDE textbook [DuChateau & Zachmann] and read
> the sections that discuss uniqueness theorems and what is required to
> satisfy them.
There needs no denial in mathematics. You have failed to see the
logic in it. You choose to hide behind some book published by some
unknown authors in which I am supposed to waste my time and money to
find it and to buy it. You got to be kidding me.
> > The solutions yielded by a set of differential equations have no more
> > extra meaning than the solutions of a quadratic equation such as (x^2
> > - 3 x + 2 = 0). In this case, x = 1 or 2. Unless you can prove (1 =
> > 2), the solutions are independent of each other. However, 1 is a
> > transform from 2, and 2 is a transform from 1. Even if they are a
> > transform of each other, 1 is still not 2, and 2 is still not 1. This
> > should be a very basic mathematical concept, but I see that it bothers
> > and most physicists. Why?
>
> What are you talking about? One is not a "transform" of two - the
> numbers are scalars.
Hello! 2 = 1 + 1, and 1 = 2 – 1. These are perfect and valid
transforms. <shrug>
> Please don't pretend that you have your finger on the pulse of physics
> when you don't understand the base concepts involved here.
Your problem is that I do understand the pulse of physics.
Confronting me, you just fall apart. All your argument is total
bullsh*t.
> > You have an excuse because you are a multi-
> > year super senior. How about the professors and PhD’s? Correct me
> > if I am wrong. The 1st year algebra student should have already
> > understood this very simple but basic mathematical concept. <shrug>
> > This has never been done. You are dreaming again. <shrug>
>
> Progress beyond denial, kooby. You are fooling nobody.
>
> Go back and read the archives.
You are correct. I cannot fool anyone and have not attempted and will
not attempt to fool anyone. <shrug> However, the archive has no such
record of what you are describing. You are delusional.
> > As I said many times over, the metric cannot be a tensor.
>
> As you were told many times, you are wrong.
As I said many times over, the metric cannot be a tensor.
> > It is merely a matrix.
>
> A matrix is just an ordered set of numbers.
That is correct. It also depends on how you group you coordinates.
<shrug>
> A tensor obeys special
> properties that happen to be shared with rank 2 matrices.
Yes, but that does not apply to the metric. <shrug>
> Isn't learning fun?
Well, in this case for you is lack of learning. It must really such
to lick up bullsh*t without really understanding the issues involved.
<shrug>
> > That is because the geometry must be invariant. To
> > describe the geometry, you need the metric and the coordinate system.
>
> To describe the geometry _in a particular coordinate basis_ you need
> to project the metric upon a coordinate basis.
Of course, this is what I have been saying. To describe the geometry,
you need to establish what your choice of coordinate system is and
choose the proper metric. Thus, the metric is dependent on what
coordinate system you have chosen. Just how many times do I have to
checkmate you on this issue?
> > Since coordinate system depends on each observer, the metric must vary
> > with the coordinate system to yield an invariant geometry. This very
> > basic concept in geometry and methodology of experimentation still
> > eludes you and all physicists. The nonsense about the metric being
> > invariant has been around since Ricci’s time. Mysticism is always
> > wisdom in disguise, is it not?
>
> You wax poetic about a subject you have spent years arguing about but
> have never understood.
A fair conclusion is that you do not understand anything. That is why
you remain a multi-year super senior at the University of Alaska.
<shrug>
> The word invariance - like tensor - has a
> specific mathematical meaning which you simply do not understand.
I have used it properly. If you don’t understand what I mean, you are
the one who does not understand the meaning of invariance. <shrug>
> > So what? Black holes or no black holes are serious matters. <shrug>
>
> Again...so?
Again, black holes or no black holes are serious matters. <shrug>
> Different solutions have different properties.
This is very correct.
> I struggle
> to understand why you think this is relevant.
Your struggle perplexes me. As you have said a moment again that
different solutions have different properties, and yet you do not
understand the significance of a solution manifesting black holes and
another one that does not. I cannot help you on this one. Try some
psychological help.
> > What gives you the right to call the Schwarzschild metric more unique
> > than Schwarzschild’s original metric? Why is Schwarzschild metric not
> > a transformation of Schwarzschild’s original metric instead?
>
> The modern Schwarzschild solution is preferred because surfaces of
> constant r have areas of 4pir^2.
Preferred is not a scientific methodology. <shrug>
> Do you know how to compute the surface area of a surface of a constant
> coordinate value yet?
Yes, always. I have shown you the answer many times over. <shrug>
> > So? Thus, the interior of the sun behaves like an FLRW metric, right?
>
> Is the sun expanding as a function of time? Is the sun homogeneous and
> isotropic?
You tell me. It depends on your FLRW metric.
> > You don’t even know how to transform from Schwarzschild’s original
> > solution to the Schwarzschild metric. <shrug>
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0503095.pdf
>
> Go learn something.
That paper does not tell me jack sh*t other than what I have known
about Schwarzschild’s original solution and the Schwarzschild metric
(Hilbert’s solution). <shrug>
> > Yes, it is not your fault that you are a multi-year super senior. I
> > seem to have heard of that excuse many times over though. Since the
> > metric cannot be a tensor, there is no point of transforming the
> > metric into something that is still the same metric. <shrug>
>
> I will never cease to be amused by your utter certainty that you
> understand the subject despite not being able to get even the basic
> concepts right, much less compute something.
>
> Since we are clearly revisiting old ground, let us go back to the last
> time. It'll make the conversation go faster.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/51e774c2099e11b0
Holy cow! I don’t even remember that post of mine. It is a great
post, is it not? I am still amazed that I can express my point so
well. It just buries all the clowns in which you know who they are.
It really makes my day.
> > You are so sore loser. You have been checkmated many times over and
> > still refuse to accept defeat. That is also why you are still a super
> > senior. Is the University of Alaska really that difficult to get a
> > degree from? I thought they pay you to go to college over there.
>
> I don't discuss personal matters with assholes.
Likewise, but being a sore loser who refuses the logical argument I
presented is hardly an issue of personal matters. Are you running out
of books to hide from? I thought you are sitting on piles after piles
of books, no?
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> Holy cow! I don’t even remember that post of mine. It is a great
> post, is it not? I am still amazed that I can express my point so
> well. It just buries all the clowns in which you know who they are.
> It really makes my day.
>
> > > You are so sore loser. You have been checkmated many times over and
> > > still refuse to accept defeat. That is also why you are still a super
> > > senior. Is the University of Alaska really that difficult to get a
> > > degree from? I thought they pay you to go to college over there.
>
> > I don't discuss personal matters with assholes.
>
> Likewise, but being a sore loser who refuses the logical argument I
> presented is hardly an issue of personal matters. Are you running out
> of books to hide from? I thought you are sitting on piles after piles
> of books, no?
A closed universe like Einstein's unbounded universe is finite.
Mitch Raemsch
hanson
news:bde115ab-0280-457e...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
and
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote each other...
... about when and how they are gonna get married...
ahaha.... Thanks for the laughs, guys!.... AHAHAHAHA...
>
hanson wrote:
But listen, last night one of the "Learning" channels aired
a very fascinating segment of their " Universe" series
in which REAL Scientists, professionals ***mused*** over
the future of the universe. ... in steps of "cosmic decades"
>
NONE of the presenters, nowhere in the entire presentation,
were ever even faintly as certain which their stories/theories
as are all those very many Einstein Dingleberries here in these
Newsgroups in their posts, about how the physics of/in the
universe unfolds. ***Einstein Dingleberries know better***.
>
So, perhaps we should fire all the professionals and put all the
resident Einstein Dingleberries in charge of the astro-physics
departments and the public presentation of their work on/in
TV Shows.
>
This would have great social impact... The public would no longer
be left with that horrible unresolved question and that empty
feeling about what may happen to the universe quintillion years
hence... ***Einstein Dingleberries will tell everybody EXACTLY ***
what's gonna happen and how it will be.... ahahahaha....
>
Thanks for the laughs all your precious Einstein Dingleberries,
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
.
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 29, 10:37 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 8:56 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Sure, they all do just like every verse in the bible has at least one
> > > interpreted meaning. <shrug>
>
> > Again, not my fault you don't know what the words mean. Take a course
> > in differential geometry or topology some time.
>
> Again, every single verse in the bible has several different meanings
> depending on the politics. <shrug>
Way to go kooby - don't bother learning the technical terms of the
field, just fart and call it a religion. That saves a lot of effort
that could be spent learning.
>
> > > What are these boundary and/or initial conditions?
>
> > Depends. Spherical symmetry is an initial condition, for example.
>
> They are all spherical! All use the good old spherically symmetric
> polar coordinate system. Want to try another bullsh*t answer?
Yea, expecting you to understand spherical symmetry was a bit
optimistic.
>
> > > This is utter bullsh*t. You were told of these and don’t even bother
> > > to understand it. <shrug>
>
> > Can't you do better than abject denial, kooby? Open an ODE textbook
> > [Boyce & DiPrima] or a PDE textbook [DuChateau & Zachmann] and read
> > the sections that discuss uniqueness theorems and what is required to
> > satisfy them.
>
> There needs no denial in mathematics. You have failed to see the
> logic in it. You choose to hide behind some book published by some
> unknown authors in which I am supposed to waste my time and money to
> find it and to buy it. You got to be kidding me.
Or go to a library, or search for some other books that cover ODE &
PDE uniqueness theorems. Or stamp your feet because nobody will spoon
feed you an education. Whichever you decide!
>
> > > The solutions yielded by a set of differential equations have no more
> > > extra meaning than the solutions of a quadratic equation such as (x^2
> > > - 3 x + 2 = 0). In this case, x = 1 or 2. Unless you can prove (1 =
> > > 2), the solutions are independent of each other. However, 1 is a
> > > transform from 2, and 2 is a transform from 1. Even if they are a
> > > transform of each other, 1 is still not 2, and 2 is still not 1. This
> > > should be a very basic mathematical concept, but I see that it bothers
> > > and most physicists. Why?
>
> > What are you talking about? One is not a "transform" of two - the
> > numbers are scalars.
>
> Hello! 2 = 1 + 1, and 1 = 2 – 1. These are perfect and valid
> transforms. <shrug>
Congratulations! You have no idea what the word "transform" means.
I'll add it to the list.
>
> > Please don't pretend that you have your finger on the pulse of physics
> > when you don't understand the base concepts involved here.
>
> Your problem is that I do understand the pulse of physics.
> Confronting me, you just fall apart. All your argument is total
> bullsh*t.
Have you figured out how to do an integral yet?
>
> > > You have an excuse because you are a multi-
> > > year super senior. How about the professors and PhD’s? Correct me
> > > if I am wrong. The 1st year algebra student should have already
> > > understood this very simple but basic mathematical concept. <shrug>
> > > This has never been done. You are dreaming again. <shrug>
>
> > Progress beyond denial, kooby. You are fooling nobody.
>
> > Go back and read the archives.
>
> You are correct. I cannot fool anyone and have not attempted and will
> not attempt to fool anyone. <shrug> However, the archive has no such
> record of what you are describing. You are delusional.
JanPB explained it to you a year ago...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/413dcbe1b5c79241?dmode=source
Mentioned to you again 3 months later.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7c4b0cb7052649f5?dmode=source
Here I give you the explicit coordinate transformation.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5e4cf198adbd8234?dmode=source
Denial is not just a river in Egypt, now is it?
>
> > > As I said many times over, the metric cannot be a tensor.
>
> > As you were told many times, you are wrong.
>
> As I said many times over, the metric cannot be a tensor.
You think your proclamations are relevant because....?
>
> > > It is merely a matrix.
>
> > A matrix is just an ordered set of numbers.
>
> That is correct. It also depends on how you group you coordinates.
> <shrug>
>
> > A tensor obeys special
> > properties that happen to be shared with rank 2 matrices.
>
> Yes, but that does not apply to the metric. <shrug>
Prove it.
>
> > Isn't learning fun?
>
> Well, in this case for you is lack of learning. It must really such
> to lick up bullsh*t without really understanding the issues involved.
> <shrug>
>
> > > That is because the geometry must be invariant. To
> > > describe the geometry, you need the metric and the coordinate system.
>
> > To describe the geometry _in a particular coordinate basis_ you need
> > to project the metric upon a coordinate basis.
>
> Of course, this is what I have been saying. To describe the geometry,
> you need to establish what your choice of coordinate system is and
> choose the proper metric. Thus, the metric is dependent on what
> coordinate system you have chosen. Just how many times do I have to
> checkmate you on this issue?
You are deluded if you think you are "checkmating" me. This isn't a
physics issue, this is a "kooby doesn't get math" issue.
In F = ma you can have solutions that are oscillatory in time or
solutions that are quadratic in time depending what you put in for F.
Explain how that is ok in F = ma but not ok in G_uv = kT_uv.
>
> > > What gives you the right to call the Schwarzschild metric more unique
> > > than Schwarzschild’s original metric? Why is Schwarzschild metric not
> > > a transformation of Schwarzschild’s original metric instead?
>
> > The modern Schwarzschild solution is preferred because surfaces of
> > constant r have areas of 4pir^2.
>
> Preferred is not a scientific methodology. <shrug>
You asked why, and you were told why. Don't stamp your feet because
you don't like what you were told.
>
> > Do you know how to compute the surface area of a surface of a constant
> > coordinate value yet?
>
> Yes, always. I have shown you the answer many times over. <shrug>
Yes - you _show_ the answer but you cannot derive the answer. Plus you
always show the same answer, even when it is wrong!
>
> > > So? Thus, the interior of the sun behaves like an FLRW metric, right?
>
> > Is the sun expanding as a function of time? Is the sun homogeneous and
> > isotropic?
>
> You tell me. It depends on your FLRW metric.
Your idea, your problem.
>
> > > You don’t even know how to transform from Schwarzschild’s original
> > > solution to the Schwarzschild metric. <shrug>
>
> >http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0503095.pdf
>
> > Go learn something.
>
> That paper does not tell me jack sh*t other than what I have known
> about Schwarzschild’s original solution and the Schwarzschild metric
> (Hilbert’s solution). <shrug>
It gives you the coordinate mapping between the two. Don't cry because
you can't read for comprehension.
[snip remaining]
Koobee Wublee
> On Apr 29, 10:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Again, every single verse in the bible has several different meanings
> > depending on the politics. <shrug>
>
> Way to go kooby - don't bother learning the technical terms of the
> field, just fart and call it a religion.
It is a religious thing we are dealing with. Calling it otherwise
would be guilty of lying. <shrug>
> That saves a lot of effort
> that could be spent learning.
Yes, what takes you so long to realize that? I would expect being a
multi-year super senior you have all the time in the world to do so.
<shrug>
> > They are all spherical! All use the good old spherically symmetric
> > polar coordinate system. Want to try another bullsh*t answer?
>
> Yea, expecting you to understand spherical symmetry was a bit
> optimistic.
So, you have run out of arguments. Now, you are accusing of not
knowing what polar coordinates are for. Can you do better than that?
> > There needs no denial in mathematics. You have failed to see the
> > logic in it. You choose to hide behind some book published by some
> > unknown authors in which I am supposed to waste my time and money to
> > find it and to buy it. You got to be kidding me.
>
> Or go to a library, or search for some other books that cover ODE &
> PDE uniqueness theorems. Or stamp your feet because nobody will spoon
> feed you an education. Whichever you decide!
I have done ODE and PDE. My daily job depends on them. Well, is this
truly the best you can do on cheap shots?
> > Hello! 2 = 1 + 1, and 1 = 2 – 1. These are perfect and valid
> > transforms. <shrug>
>
> Congratulations! You have no idea what the word "transform" means.
> I'll add it to the list.
Go right ahead and add that to your list. It will prove you more
wrong in the future. Ahahaha...
> > Your problem is that I do understand the pulse of physics.
> > Confronting me, you just fall apart. All your argument is total
> > bullsh*t.
>
> Have you figured out how to do an integral yet?
Since I was a junior in high school. <shrug>
> > You are correct. I cannot fool anyone and have not attempted and will
> > not attempt to fool anyone. <shrug> However, the archive has no such
> > record of what you are describing. You are delusional.
>
> JanPB explained it to you a year ago...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/413dcbe1b5c...
>
> Mentioned to you again 3 months later.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7c4b0cb7052...
They are all bullsh*t. Just follow the response I had on these.
> Here I give you the explicit coordinate transformation.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5e4cf198adb...
More bullsh*t.
> Denial is not just a river in Egypt, now is it?
The river is Nile not denial. You seem to live in your own fantasy
world.
> > As I said many times over, the metric cannot be a tensor.
>
> You think your proclamations are relevant because....?
Because of the reason I gave many times over. <shrug>
> > Yes, but that does not apply to the metric. <shrug>
>
> Prove it.
You need to read what I have posted. <shrug>
> > Of course, this is what I have been saying. To describe the geometry,
> > you need to establish what your choice of coordinate system is and
> > choose the proper metric. Thus, the metric is dependent on what
> > coordinate system you have chosen. Just how many times do I have to
> > checkmate you on this issue?
>
> You are deluded if you think you are "checkmating" me. This isn't a
> physics issue, this is a "kooby doesn't get math" issue.
Checkmate!
> > Your struggle perplexes me. As you have said a moment again that
> > different solutions have different properties, and yet you do not
> > understand the significance of a solution manifesting black holes and
> > another one that does not. I cannot help you on this one. Try some
> > psychological help.
>
> In F = ma you can have solutions that are oscillatory in time or
> solutions that are quadratic in time depending what you put in for F.
> Explain how that is ok in F = ma but not ok in G_uv = kT_uv.
As I said, you are very delusional. <shrug>
> > Preferred is not a scientific methodology. <shrug>
>
> You asked why, and you were told why. Don't stamp your feet because
> you don't like what you were told.
I am still perplexed by your delusions. <shrug>
> > Yes, always. I have shown you the answer many times over. <shrug>
>
> Yes - you _show_ the answer but you cannot derive the answer. Plus you
> always show the same answer, even when it is wrong!
It is wrong to you because you do not understand the mathematics
involved. That is why you are still a multi-year super senior at the
University of Alaska. <shrug>
> > You tell me. It depends on your FLRW metric.
>
> Your idea, your problem.
You are the one who is confused by the FLRW metric, remember?
> > That paper does not tell me jack sh*t other than what I have known
> > about Schwarzschild’s original solution and the Schwarzschild metric
> > (Hilbert’s solution). <shrug>
>
> It gives you the coordinate mapping between the two. Don't cry because
> you can't read for comprehension.
It tells me what Schwarzschild’s original solutions and what the
Schwarzschild metric are, but no more. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
[snip complete non-response]
Still true to form. Oh well.