Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372922 > unrolled thread
| Started by | partso2@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-30 02:51 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-19 01:02 -0800 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 209 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is the Schw. solution the only one? partso2@yahoo.com - 2015-12-30 02:51 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-30 08:49 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 10:38 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 19:53 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-30 20:46 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 01:35 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 07:24 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 13:09 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 02:11 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 06:25 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 10:18 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 14:13 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 23:05 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 04:46 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 19:47 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-01-04 14:02 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 15:48 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-30 21:41 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 21:32 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 08:29 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 22:38 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 21:27 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 22:22 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 00:32 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:09 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 12:50 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:32 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 21:06 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 11:51 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-12-31 11:42 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:08 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 16:33 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:16 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 20:40 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 13:48 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 23:13 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 22:54 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 12:35 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 22:16 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 22:35 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 22:57 -0800
Cretin Koobee Wublee "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 07:25 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 10:31 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:51 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 23:12 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 07:21 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 12:18 -0800
Cretin Koobee Wublee "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 07:25 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 08:01 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 09:31 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 10:04 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 19:33 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 21:44 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 00:30 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 11:11 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 08:22 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 17:57 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 10:58 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 20:15 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 12:07 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 22:44 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 14:29 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-05 00:04 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 15:35 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-05 01:52 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 17:54 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-01-04 18:37 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-04 19:30 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 12:01 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-04 20:13 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 12:21 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-04 20:33 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 13:36 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 11:01 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-04 13:39 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-04 19:59 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 12:04 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-04 14:46 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 22:42 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 14:31 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-05 00:09 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 15:41 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-05 01:50 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 18:53 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-05 09:43 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 12:24 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-05 22:33 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 14:11 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-06 09:51 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 04:50 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-06 15:49 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 12:50 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 12:38 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-06 21:51 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 14:03 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 15:17 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-06 23:46 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:51 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-06 19:04 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-07 11:58 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-07 19:44 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 12:20 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-06 22:48 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 00:35 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-07 00:53 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 10:55 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-07 20:13 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-06 23:45 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 00:37 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-07 01:04 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 10:49 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-07 20:10 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 12:17 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-07 21:25 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 12:29 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-07 21:45 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 13:35 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-07 22:43 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 14:19 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-07 22:34 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-08 06:47 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 00:13 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-08 01:19 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-06 23:31 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 03:05 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-07 04:28 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 05:00 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-07 05:50 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 11:01 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-07 20:18 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-07 20:04 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 12:25 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-07 21:35 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 12:43 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-07 21:48 +0100
Now we know, why The Shit matches reality so well... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-07 17:12 +0100
Re: Now we know, why The Shit matches reality so well... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 08:47 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 15:10 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 16:31 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:04 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-04 22:22 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:41 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 09:51 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 12:25 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? partso2@yahoo.com - 2016-01-04 23:30 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-01-05 08:11 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 12:30 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-05 22:41 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 14:13 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:01 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-06 09:58 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 12:42 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-05 10:26 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-05 17:32 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 13:16 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? partso2@yahoo.com - 2016-01-06 23:54 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 07:46 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-06 15:47 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 07:40 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 10:42 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 11:06 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 12:31 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 08:21 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 09:53 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 10:17 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 13:31 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 11:11 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-08 20:42 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 15:52 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 16:12 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 16:16 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 15:29 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 19:37 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 00:29 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 01:46 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 23:58 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:15 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:14 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-11 22:56 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-10 07:39 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-10 10:43 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 16:34 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 00:07 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:22 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:14 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-10 19:42 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 20:01 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 08:44 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:23 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:15 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:18 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 16:58 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 20:51 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-10 22:07 -0600
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 00:24 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 08:49 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 00:16 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 08:51 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 09:48 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 19:46 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 15:32 -0800
Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-07 09:28 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? partso2@yahoo.com - 2016-01-16 22:58 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-17 10:54 +0100
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-17 13:26 +0000
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-01-17 10:49 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 23:45 -0800
Re: Is the Schw. solution the only one? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-19 01:02 -0800
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 19:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe76a607-b1f0-496c-80ac-e40993640d60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373543 |
On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 4:52:35 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 11:11:31 AM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > They are all wrong since they don't satisfy what Schwarzschild had > > > discovered in its general form. <shrug> > > > > > ** dS^2 = c^2 (1 - a / R) dt^2 - dR^2 / (1 - a / R) - R^2 dO^2 > > > > > Where > > > > > ** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2 > > > ** a = integration constant > > > > > When (R = r), the above becomes the Schwarzschild metric. When > > > (R = (a^3 + r^3)^(1/3)), the above becomes Schwarzschild's original > > > solution. Notice you have to solve (dR/dr). When (R = r + a), the > > > above describes a simple spacetime geometry that also degenerates > > > into Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug> > > > > > ** dS^2 - c^2 dt^2 / (1 + a / r) - (1 + a / r) dr^2 - (r + a)^2 dO^2 > > > > > The above manifests no black holes but offers a tangential curvature. > > > <shrug> > > > > > Reference: > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030 > > > > No, it's correct. > > No, Birkhoff's theorem is not correct by example. The second equation above is also a solution but is tangentially curved nor manifests black holes.... Dumb nut, it does. Its not "also", but is the SAME solution. I already told you the coordinate translation that shows they are equivalent. In these coordinates for a black hole, the event horizon is at r=0 and the physical singularity is at r=-a, idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 15:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <54dec1b9-32ba-43d2-827c-7097abe378ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373559 |
On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 7:46:13 PM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > They are all wrong since they don't satisfy what Schwarzschild had > > discovered in its general form. <shrug> > > > ** dS^2 = c^2 (1 - a / R) dt^2 - dR^2 / (1 - a / R) - R^2 dO^2 > > > Where > > > ** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2 > > ** a = integration constant > > > When (R = r), the above becomes the Schwarzschild metric. When > > (R = (a^3 + r^3)^(1/3)), the above becomes Schwarzschild's original > > solution. Notice you have to solve (dR/dr). When (R = r + a), the > > above describes a simple spacetime geometry that also degenerates > > into Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug> > > > ** dS^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + a / r) - (1 + a / r) dr^2 - (r + a)^2 dO^2 > > > The above manifests no black holes but offers a tangential curvature. > > <shrug> > > > Reference: > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030 > > > Birkhoff's theorem is not correct by example. > > Dumb nut, it does. [more garbage snipped] Waite is wrong. These two equations are not the same. Each describe its own geometry of spacetime. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 09:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6e2b6201-8f04-4986-b66a-b89660cdcd3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372922 |
Orthogonal inside radial. (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 ((299 792 458.178 * 100)^(e^(i * pi))) * 2 = 6.6712819e-11 100 - 1 = 99 https://youtu.be/qhbuKbxJsk8?t=9m39s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set https://youtu.be/K8P8uFahAgc?t=2m1s https://youtu.be/K8P8uFahAgc?t=3m24s (49.5*299792458)^(e^(i*pi)) Mandelbrot 100 - 1 = 99 /2 https://youtu.be/qhbuKbxJsk8?t=9m39s 50/7-4
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | partso2@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 22:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d97ad4a-25bb-493d-9422-8328d6fb1e01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372922 |
I didn't see any answer (I may have missed it with all the junk flowing around), so I'll restate my question. Did anyone solve the field equations of GR in the case of cyllindrical symmetry, uniform mass distribution along the Z axis? Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 10:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5714629.C0PfDoERcG@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #374172 |
partso2@yahoo.com wrote: > I didn't see any answer There were several good ones. However, next time, few people, if any, might notice the question. Do not post to Usenet via borked, spammer-friendly Google Groups, and do post using your real name (only possible with Google Groups if you “Join group”). > (I may have missed it with all the junk flowing around), Do not read Usenet using Google Groups; but if you do, report the junk *coming from there* (use “Show original” to find out if it does: look out for the “Message-ID” header field – not that that is likely to get the spammer blocked by Google), and *then* find a way to hide the junk (e.g. with GreaseMonkey/TamperMonkey; there had been scripts doing that, e.g. “Google Killfile” but they are not provided anymore). A newsreader’s scorefile/killfile will quickly get rid of the junk locally, which is primarily coming from individuals using Google Groups. > so I'll restate my question. If you must… > Did anyone solve the field equations of GR in the case of cyllindrical > symmetry, uniform mass distribution along the Z axis? Maybe. Why? <http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html> PointedEars -- Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity does it take to change a light bulb? A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 13:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7g4q5$a1d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374175 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > partso2@yahoo.com wrote: > >> I didn't see any answer > > There were several good ones. > However, next time, few people, if any, might notice the question. Do > not post to Usenet via borked, spammer-friendly Google Groups, and do > post using your real name (only possible with Google Groups if you “Join > group”). Cretin. Stop mimicking answering questions. You are not qualified and have no excuses for not be willing wanting to learn. --- Re: Did anyone solve the field equations of GR in the case of cyllindrical symmetry, uniform mass distribution along the Z axis? ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 10:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <carlip-AB9C60.10492017012016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #374172 |
In article <2d97ad4a-25bb-493d-9422-8328d6fb1e01@googlegroups.com>, partso2@yahoo.com wrote: > I didn't see any answer (I may have missed it with all the junk flowing > around), so I'll restate my question. > Did anyone solve the field equations of GR in the case of cyllindrical > symmetry, uniform mass distribution along the Z axis? Yes. This was first done, I believe, by Levi-Civita in 1919: T. Levi-Civita, Rend. Acc. Lincei 28 (1919) 3 and 101. You'll find a general treatment (with various assumptions about the pressure of the mass distribution), along with a historical discussion, in Trendafilova and Fulling, arXiv:1101.4668. For future reference: if you search Google Scholar you can find these (and many others) yourself, faster than waiting for someone to answer on a newsgroup. Steve Carlip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 23:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bcac5d5b-8e96-4c8f-b1cf-c695e341442d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374211 |
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 10:49:21 AM UTC-8, Steven Carlip wrote: > partso2@yahoo.com wrote: > > Did anyone solve the field equations of GR in the case of > > cyllindrical symmetry, uniform mass distribution along the Z axis? > > Yes. This was first done, I believe, by Levi-Civita in 1919: > T. Levi-Civita, Rend. Acc. Lincei 28 (1919) 3 and 101. > > You'll find a general treatment (with various assumptions about > the pressure of the mass distribution), along with a historical > discussion, in Trendafilova and Fulling, arXiv:1101.4668. Cylindrical solutions are not worth given any thoughts in real life. It serves as useless master theses on the manmade set of the field equations. <shaking head>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 01:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97e063e4-a578-4ab5-bfcf-45591d039425@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374172 |
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 11:58:20 PM UTC-7, par...@yahoo.com wrote: > I didn't see any answer (I may have missed it with all the junk flowing around), so I'll restate my question. > > Did anyone solve the field equations of GR in the case of cyllindrical symmetry, uniform mass distribution along the Z axis? > > > Thanks. My exact solution for a charged line: http://www.modernrelativitysite.com/Image500.gif Numeric vacuum solution See: Brill waves.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web