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 | 20 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 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 22:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <757c8d13-0bcc-458b-8f8e-38dcc94cea4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373167 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 10:35:37 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Despite the paper is wrong to a solution more general to the > > Schwarzschild metric. Koobee Wublee cannot believe the paper passed > > all peer reviews. <shrug> > > 1. Steven referred two papers. What do you mean by _the_ paper? Koobee Wublee opened the first paper by random and immediately found a problem. <shrug> > 2. Where is it wrong and why? Read what Koobee Wublee has written. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 07:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Koobee Wublee |
| Message-ID | <49ce4368-ce06-45ec-b08c-214f03b286d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373169 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 10:57:42 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 10:35:37 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > Despite the paper is wrong to a solution more general to the > > > Schwarzschild metric. Koobee Wublee cannot believe the paper passed > > > all peer reviews. <shrug> > > > > 1. Steven referred two papers. What do you mean by _the_ paper? > > Koobee Wublee opened the first paper by random and immediately found a problem. <shrug> > Cretin Koobee Wublee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 10:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ad95bd8c-aee8-4760-8199-ef556328931a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373169 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 10:57:42 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 10:35:37 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > Despite the paper is wrong to a solution more general to the > > > Schwarzschild metric. Koobee Wublee cannot believe the paper passed > > > all peer reviews. <shrug> > > > > 1. Steven referred two papers. What do you mean by _the_ paper? > > Koobee Wublee opened the first paper by random and immediately found a problem. <shrug> > > > 2. Where is it wrong and why? > > Read what Koobee Wublee has written. <shrug> Where did you write where the paper is wrong? Is this some kind of secret? Just say what the error is and where. Or provide a link to the post you claim you "have written". -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 12:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9c005d6d-21ee-4f7a-bf07-804d075b9d61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373204 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:31:18 AM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Koobee Wublee opened the first paper by random and immediately > > found a problem. <shrug> > Where did you write where the paper is wrong? Is this some kind of > secret? Just say what the error is and where. Or provide a link to > the post you claim you "have written". https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/PWNz5Hlq0a8/CThESWYTDQAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 23:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eaed2b3d-6b7a-43e0-86c9-7fed6ac3ff23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373230 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 12:51:54 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:31:18 AM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > Where did you write where the paper is wrong? Is this some kind of > > secret? Just say what the error is and where. Or provide a link to > > the post you claim you "have written". > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/PWNz5Hlq0a8/CThESWYTDQAJ Notice Jan the relativistic moron now has avoided this topic, that no other seasoned Einstein dingleberries would dare to challenge Koobee Wublee as so, and opts to bullshit the discussion with a stupid question. The old trick of changing the topic when exposed in the most awkward situation. <shrug> KOOBEE WUBLEE OWNS THE EINSTEIN DINGLEBERRIES! AHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHA!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 07:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6gfsf$13am$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373330 |
On 1/5/2016 1:12 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > KOOBEE WUBLEE OWNS THE EINSTEIN DINGLEBERRIES! AHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHA! Koobee, how you cope with your insecurities and debilitating inferiority complex is something you'll have to deal with, but please just take note that it's pretty ridiculous behavior. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 12:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b3f7140c-20d6-4131-ac44-3b744f94b098@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373330 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:12:03 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 12:51:54 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:31:18 AM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > > Where did you write where the paper is wrong? Is this some kind of > > > secret? Just say what the error is and where. Or provide a link to > > > the post you claim you "have written". > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/PWNz5Hlq0a8/CThESWYTDQAJ > > Notice Jan the relativistic moron now has avoided this topic, that no other seasoned Einstein dingleberries would dare to challenge Koobee Wublee as so, and opts to bullshit the discussion with a stupid question. The old trick of changing the topic when exposed in the most awkward situation. <shrug> > > KOOBEE WUBLEE OWNS THE EINSTEIN DINGLEBERRIES! AHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHA! The link you posted is not an argument, it simply states "equation (3) is wrong". Anyone can _say_ anything. My question was: show the evidence. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 07:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Koobee Wublee |
| Message-ID | <0e993008-d5e7-47d6-94c2-5dce3c24d7a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373165 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 12:35:06 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 11:42:09 AM, Steven Carlip wrote: > > > > The "Exact Solutions" book is not public domain, but most decent > > > university libraries will have a copy. There's nothing nearly > > > as comprehensive available free, but you can get a flavor of > > > some of the exact solutions from Bicak, arXiv:gr-qc/0004016 > > > and arXiv:gr-qc/0604102. > > > > Thank you for the excellent references. > > Despite the paper is wrong to a solution more general to the Schwarzschild metric. Koobee Wublee cannot believe the paper passed all peer reviews. <shrug> Cretin Koobee Wublee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 08:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <da59fece-451b-404b-8030-9e43502252cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372922 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 3:51:44 AM UTC-7, par...@yahoo.com wrote: > Did anyone ever solve the field eqs. of GR in any case other than radial symmetry? Any spherically symmetric exact vacuum solution is the Schwarzschild solution even though you may not recognize it as it may be expressed in coordinates you're not familiar with. That's Birkoff's theorem. However there are exact solutions to the field equations that aren't vacuum with spherical symmetry. They are for stress-energy tensors that are representations of physically realistic matter states. The one I think you're wanting to know about is R is any function of u u= r (+/-) ct ds^2 = dct^2 -(dr^2 + r^2dtheta^2 +r^2sin^2thetadphi^2)-[(R/r)-(e/r)^2+ (L(r^2)/3)](dr (+/-) dct)^2 L is the cosmological constant. e is q*sqrt(kG)/c^2 q is the charge A video discussing a relevant solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 09:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d3273bb6-83fd-4fab-902b-340d4db4de3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373188 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:01:55 AM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, par...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Did anyone ever solve the field eqs. of GR in any case other than > > radial symmetry? > > R is any function of u > u= r (+/-) ct > ds^2 = dct^2 -(dr^2 + r^2dtheta^2 +r^2sin^2thetadphi^2)-[(R/r)-(e/r)^2+ (L(r^2)/3)](dr (+/-) dct)^2 > L is the cosmological constant. e is q*sqrt(kG)/c^2 > q is the charge The above is not a solution to the field equations. <shrug> > Any spherically symmetric exact vacuum solution is the Schwarzschild > solution even though you may not recognize it as it may be expressed > in coordinates you're not familiar with. That's Birkoff's theorem. > However there are exact solutions to the field equations that aren't > vacuum with spherical symmetry. They are for stress-energy tensors > that are representations of physically realistic matter states. More nonsense, but at least the signature of the wrong metric is correct. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 10:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d60a87f9-4a05-4e9c-a202-c1e110f86c0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373193 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:31:05 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:01:55 AM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, par...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Did anyone ever solve the field eqs. of GR in any case other than > > > radial symmetry? > > > > R is any function of u > > u= r (+/-) ct > > ds^2 = dct^2 -(dr^2 + r^2dtheta^2 +r^2sin^2thetadphi^2)-[(R/r)-(e/r)^2+ (L(r^2)/3)](dr (+/-) dct)^2 > > L is the cosmological constant. e is q*sqrt(kG)/c^2 > > q is the charge > > The above is not a solution to the field equations. ... Yes it is. But feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 19:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d02bf15-3911-422e-a741-45fdd8f182b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372922 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 3:51:44 AM UTC-7, par...@yahoo.com wrote: > Did anyone ever solve the field eqs. of GR in any case other than radial symmetry? The paper wasn't wrong. You're just a crank that doesn't understand what it was saying. From the paragraph with the equation "...up to one order beyond the Newtonian approximation...", equation 3 wasn't intended as an exact solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 21:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <395cc84d-cae4-4625-97ba-c2ee15f37cd3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373249 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:33:23 PM UTC-8, David Waite wrote: > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, par...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Did anyone ever solve the field eqs. of GR in any case other than > > radial symmetry? > > From the paragraph with the equation "...up to one order beyond > the Newtonian approximation...", equation 3 wasn't intended as an > exact solution. Waite is still having a hangover from that New Year Eve party. It is a blasphemy to point out something more general to the Schwarzschild metric as the Newtonian degenerate. That is why Waite is such an outcast outside the church of relativity. <shrug> However, one may help not to associate Waite with Luther, but the difference is that Waite is just another alchemist who does not even understand the preaching of the religion that it is trying to reform. It is really indeed very funny. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 00:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <943002b8-8df5-46da-b123-ce4086416d76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373252 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 9:44:44 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:33:23 PM UTC-8, David Waite wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, par...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Did anyone ever solve the field eqs. of GR in any case other than
> > > radial symmetry?
> >
> > From the paragraph with the equation "...up to one order beyond
> > the Newtonian approximation...", equation 3 wasn't intended as an
> > exact solution.
>
> Waite is still having a hangover from that New Year Eve party. It is a blasphemy to point out something more general to the Schwarzschild metric as the Newtonian degenerate. That is why Waite is such an outcast outside the church of relativity. <shrug>
>
> However, one may help not to associate Waite with Luther, but the difference is that Waite is just another alchemist who does not even understand the preaching of the religion that it is trying to reform. It is really indeed very funny. <shrug>
You keep repeating those vacuous, totally vacuous, statements as if you knew what they
meant. Meanwhile, you cannot answer simplest questions in the trade. So how on earth
can anyone believe what you are saying? One simple question I asked you many times
over months now is this basic one: in the 2D (just two dimensions) xy-plane let's
introduce the following metric:
ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2
Question for you was and is: this expression is undefined at x=0. Is this singularity real?
For example, could an ant walk from the point (-1,0) to the point (1,0)?
If you cannot answer basic stuff like this, what are you doing telling other people that some
equation for a metric in GR is right or wrong?
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 11:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6dgi0$r8p$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373259 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:943002b8-8df5-46da-b123-ce4086416d76@googlegroups.com... |You keep repeating those vacuous, totally vacuous, statements as if you knew what they |meant. Meanwhile, you cannot answer simplest questions in the trade. You keep repeating those vacuous, totally vacuous, statements as if you knew what they meant. Meanwhile, you cannot answer simplest questions in the trade. Insted, you're only yelling "these are not questions!!! these are rants!!!" As expected from a relativistic moron. So how on earth can anyone believe what you are saying, poor, self-appointed guru? Many simple questions I asked you many times over months - won't even waste my time to repeat them once again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 08:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c0b920d-55d3-427c-bb76-c29d6920f044@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373263 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:12:18 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:943002b8-8df5-46da-b123-ce4086416d76@googlegroups.com... > > > |You keep repeating those vacuous, totally vacuous, statements as if you > knew what they meant. Reread what I wrote. I asked a concrete, technical question. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 17:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6e8b0$o7v$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373275 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:8c0b920d-55d3-427c-bb76-c29d6920f044@googlegroups.com... On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:12:18 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:943002b8-8df5-46da-b123-ce4086416d76@googlegroups.com... > > > |You keep repeating those vacuous, totally vacuous, statements as if you > knew what they meant. |Reread what I wrote. I asked a concrete, technical question. Reread, what you wrote. Technical? Buhahahahahahahahaha. You obviously don't know, what this word mean. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 10:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <576ce737-0666-4285-92e0-6970086ed95b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373277 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:58:10 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:8c0b920d-55d3-427c-bb76-c29d6920f044@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:12:18 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:943002b8-8df5-46da-b123-ce4086416d76@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > |You keep repeating those vacuous, totally vacuous, statements as if you
> > knew what they meant.
>
> |Reread what I wrote. I asked a concrete, technical question.
>
> Reread, what you wrote. Technical? Buhahahahahahahahaha.
> You obviously don't know, what this word mean. As expected
> from a relativistic moron.
I asked a specific question and it's a technical one. Don't waste everybody's
time denying the obvious, the record is clear, just do a search. Here is my
question again. It was BTW meant for Koobee:
In the 2D (just two dimensions) xy-plane let's introduce the following metric:
ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2
Question is: this expression is undefined at x=0. Is this singularity real?
For example, could an ant walk from the point (-1,0) to the point (1,0)?
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 20:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6egcm$kv$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373280 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:576ce737-0666-4285-92e0-6970086ed95b@googlegroups.com... On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:58:10 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:8c0b920d-55d3-427c-bb76-c29d6920f044@googlegroups.com... > > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:12:18 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:943002b8-8df5-46da-b123-ce4086416d76@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > |You keep repeating those vacuous, totally vacuous, statements as if you > > knew what they meant. > > |Reread what I wrote. I asked a concrete, technical question. > > Reread, what you wrote. Technical? Buhahahahahahahahaha. > You obviously don't know, what this word mean. As expected > from a relativistic moron. |I asked a specific question yes. |and it's a technical one. No. You obviously don't know, what this word mean. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 12:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <95deea26-677d-4ce4-9857-8a621d388f8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373283 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:15:36 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:576ce737-0666-4285-92e0-6970086ed95b@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:58:10 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:8c0b920d-55d3-427c-bb76-c29d6920f044@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:12:18 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:943002b8-8df5-46da-b123-ce4086416d76@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > |You keep repeating those vacuous, totally vacuous, statements as if you
> > > knew what they meant.
> >
> > |Reread what I wrote. I asked a concrete, technical question.
> >
> > Reread, what you wrote. Technical? Buhahahahahahahahaha.
> > You obviously don't know, what this word mean. As expected
> > from a relativistic moron.
>
> |I asked a specific question
> yes.
>
> |and it's a technical one.
>
> No. You obviously don't know, what this word mean. As expected
> from a relativistic moron.
I asked:
In the 2D (just two dimensions) xy-plane let's introduce the following metric:
ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2
Question is: this expression is undefined at x=0 (i.e., the y-axis). Is this
singularity real? For example, could an ant walk from the point (-1,0) to
the point (1,0)?
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web