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 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 22:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0af90f76-8db2-453d-a624-8cc8c88d0c5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373290 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:40:01 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 1/4/16, 1:01 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > For the readers, Jan the relativistic moron is still thoroughly > > confused among the following. <shrug> > > > ** GEMOETRY > > ** METRIC > > ** COORDINATE SYSTEM > > > When Koobee Wublee had stated the very bold intention of > > describing a geometry using the polar coordinate system, Jan the > > relativistic moron developed problem with that yelling the > > following nonsense. <shrug> > > > ** "What gives you the right to use that coordinate system?" > > > Jan the relativistic moron is not alone. <shrug> > > it is a question about understanding the very things you claim that > he is "confused" about: geometry, metric, and coordinates. As Koobee Wublee had stated, Jan the relativistic moron is not alone in confusing the geometry, the metric, and the coordinate system. Tom is as well. <shrug> As Koobee Wublee writes down the following relationship, ** ds^2 = [g1] * d^2[q1] = [g2] * d^2[q2] Where ** ds^2 = scalar ** [g1] = [[1, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 1]], 3x3 matrix ** [g2] = [[1, 0, 0], [0, r^2 cos^2(Latitude), 0], [0, 0, r^2]] ** d^2[q1] = [[dx^2, dx dy, dx dz], [dy dx, dy^2, dy dz], [dz dx, dz dy, dz^2]] ** d^2[q2] = [[dr^2, dr dLongitude, dr dLatitude], [dLongitude dr, dLongitude^2, dLongitude dLatitude], [dLatitude dr, dLatitude dLongitude, dLatitude^2]] ** [a] * [b] = [a]^ij [b]_ij, dot product of 2 matrices Can Tom and Jan identify what are the geometry or the geometries, the metrics, and the coordinate systems? Which ones are invariant? Watch Tom and Jan play fools out of themselves. <shrug> Also, Tom and other Einstein dingleberries have boldly dictated the GPS engineers to design in a fixed scaled pre-counter from the native Cs atomic clock. Of course, this prescalar is exactly what Tom wants to justify its stupid religion of relativity namely GR. Does Tom take full responsibility when this prescalar has to be different from what Tom wishes for? Or is it more cost effective to design in a dynamic prescalar that can be programmed to any value after launch? Tom is now suddenly sweating lead. After whispering into Tom's ears, the stupid god of relativity Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just moves to haunt other Einstein dingleberries and leaves Tom alone to sweat lead. What a fvcking miserable existence Tom finds itself in! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 22:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <49667e32-3f08-41eb-8ee8-165b991c4cbe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373324 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 10:04:20 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:40:01 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 1/4/16, 1:01 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > For the readers, Jan the relativistic moron is still thoroughly > > > confused among the following. <shrug> > > > > > ** GEMOETRY > > > ** METRIC > > > ** COORDINATE SYSTEM > > > > > When Koobee Wublee had stated the very bold intention of > > > describing a geometry using the polar coordinate system, Jan the > > > relativistic moron developed problem with that yelling the > > > following nonsense. <shrug> > > > > > ** "What gives you the right to use that coordinate system?" > > > > > Jan the relativistic moron is not alone. <shrug> > > > > it is a question about understanding the very things you claim that > > he is "confused" about: geometry, metric, and coordinates. > > As Koobee Wublee had stated, Jan the relativistic moron is not alone in confusing the geometry, the metric, and the coordinate system. Tom is as well. <shrug> > > As Koobee Wublee writes down the following relationship, > > ** ds^2 = [g1] * d^2[q1] = [g2] * d^2[q2] > > Where > > ** ds^2 = scalar > > ** [g1] = [[1, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 1]], 3x3 matrix > > ** [g2] = [[1, 0, 0], [0, r^2 cos^2(Latitude), 0], [0, 0, r^2]] > > ** d^2[q1] = [[dx^2, dx dy, dx dz], [dy dx, dy^2, dy dz], [dz dx, dz dy, dz^2]] > > ** d^2[q2] = [[dr^2, dr dLongitude, dr dLatitude], [dLongitude dr, dLongitude^2, dLongitude dLatitude], [dLatitude dr, dLatitude dLongitude, dLatitude^2]] > > ** [a] * [b] = [a]^ij [b]_ij, dot product of 2 matrices > > Can Tom and Jan identify what are the geometry or the geometries, the metrics, and the coordinate systems? Which ones are invariant? Watch Tom and Jan play fools out of themselves. <shrug> > > Also, Tom and other Einstein dingleberries have boldly dictated the GPS engineers to design in a fixed scaled pre-counter from the native Cs atomic clock. Of course, this prescalar is exactly what Tom wants to justify its stupid religion of relativity namely GR. Does Tom take full responsibility when this prescalar has to be different from what Tom wishes for? Or is it more cost effective to design in a dynamic prescalar that can be programmed to any value after launch? Tom is now suddenly sweating lead. After whispering into Tom's ears, the stupid god of relativity Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just moves to haunt other Einstein dingleberries and leaves Tom alone to sweat lead. What a fvcking miserable existence Tom finds itself in! <shrug> In all fairness, you should answer Jan's question first, since he presented it first. Of course, there is no chance in hell you are capable of doing so, as you have proven over and over again, year after year. You don't know what you don't know, and it shows...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 22:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d6bd0131-9fc0-4d86-a9d4-7f9cbe9ef681@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373326 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 10:22:47 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 10:04:20 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > As Koobee Wublee had stated, Jan the relativistic moron is not > > alone in confusing the geometry, the metric, and the coordinate > > system. Tom is as well. <shrug> > > > As Koobee Wublee writes down the following relationship, > > > > ** ds^2 = [g1] * d^2[q1] = [g2] * d^2[q2] > > > Where > > > ** ds^2 = scalar > > > ** [g1] = [[1, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 1]], 3x3 matrix > > > > ** [g2] = [[1, 0, 0], [0, r^2 cos^2(Latitude), 0], [0, 0, r^2]] > > > ** d^2[q1] = [[dx^2, dx dy, dx dz], [dy dx, dy^2, dy dz], [dz > > dx, dz dy, dz^2]] > > > ** d^2[q2] = [[dr^2, dr dLongitude, dr dLatitude], [dLongitude > > dr, dLongitude^2, dLongitude dLatitude], [dLatitude dr, dLatitude > > dLongitude, dLatitude^2]] > > > ** [a] * [b] = [a]^ij [b]_ij, dot product of 2 matrices > > > Can Tom and Jan identify what are the geometry or the geometries, > > the metrics, and the coordinate systems? Which ones are > > invariant? Watch Tom and Jan play fools out of themselves. > > <shrug> > > > Also, Tom and other Einstein dingleberries have boldly dictated > > the GPS engineers to design in a fixed scaled pre-counter from the > > native Cs atomic clock. Of course, this prescalar is exactly what > > Tom wants to justify its stupid religion of relativity namely GR. > > Does Tom take full responsibility when this prescalar has to be > > different from what Tom wishes for? Or is it more cost effective > > to design in a dynamic prescalar that can be programmed to any > > value after launch? Tom is now suddenly sweating lead. After > > whispering into Tom's ears, the stupid god of relativity Einstein > > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just moves to haunt other > > Einstein dingleberries and leaves Tom alone to sweat lead. What a > > fvcking miserable existence Tom finds itself in! <shrug> > > In all fairness, you should answer Jan's question first, since he > presented it first. Ahahaha... Before Jan the relativistic moron came up with that question of plugging numbers to waste Koobee Wublee's time, Koobee Wublee has been grilling these buffoons the same question that Koobee Wublee has presented above for fvcking years. These buffoons are just as hopelessly lost as years ago. <shrug> Besides, Koobee Wublee's question is more fundamental. It clearly identifies what differential geometry is meant to be science or alchemy. <shrug> > [rest of personal attacks snipped] You have asked a question that all Einstein dingleberries are desperately avoiding. This shows you are an amateur. So, why do you support the religion of relativity? Your motivation is no longer of science but political. Are you a paid prostitute to pay lip service for the religion of relativity? That seems to be the most logical explanation. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 09:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b7cc6ce-502d-4414-9a47-887013902488@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373328 |
I asked no question whatsoever, and the fact remains that you are simply unable to answer Jan's question. You claim that you won't waste your time but you spend more time responding to me than it would take to answer! Hmmm, why would that be? I don't think you know the answer at all!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 12:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <41b14115-02a2-4950-a0a8-2e82d3deaa73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373324 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 10:04:20 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:40:01 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 1/4/16, 1:01 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > For the readers, Jan the relativistic moron is still thoroughly
> > > confused among the following. <shrug>
> >
> > > ** GEMOETRY
> > > ** METRIC
> > > ** COORDINATE SYSTEM
> >
> > > When Koobee Wublee had stated the very bold intention of
> > > describing a geometry using the polar coordinate system, Jan the
> > > relativistic moron developed problem with that yelling the
> > > following nonsense. <shrug>
> >
> > > ** "What gives you the right to use that coordinate system?"
> >
> > > Jan the relativistic moron is not alone. <shrug>
> >
> > it is a question about understanding the very things you claim that
> > he is "confused" about: geometry, metric, and coordinates.
>
> As Koobee Wublee had stated, Jan the relativistic moron is not alone in confusing the geometry, the metric, and the coordinate system. Tom is as well. <shrug>
>
> As Koobee Wublee writes down the following relationship,
>
> ** ds^2 = [g1] * d^2[q1] = [g2] * d^2[q2]
>
> Where
>
> ** ds^2 = scalar
>
> ** [g1] = [[1, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 1]], 3x3 matrix
>
> ** [g2] = [[1, 0, 0], [0, r^2 cos^2(Latitude), 0], [0, 0, r^2]]
>
> ** d^2[q1] = [[dx^2, dx dy, dx dz], [dy dx, dy^2, dy dz], [dz dx, dz dy, dz^2]]
>
> ** d^2[q2] = [[dr^2, dr dLongitude, dr dLatitude], [dLongitude dr, dLongitude^2, dLongitude dLatitude], [dLatitude dr, dLatitude dLongitude, dLatitude^2]]
>
> ** [a] * [b] = [a]^ij [b]_ij, dot product of 2 matrices
>
> Can Tom and Jan identify what are the geometry or the geometries, the metrics, and the coordinate systems? Which ones are invariant? Watch Tom and Jan play fools out of themselves. <shrug>
>
> Also, Tom and other Einstein dingleberries have boldly dictated the GPS engineers to design in a fixed scaled pre-counter from the native Cs atomic clock. Of course, this prescalar is exactly what Tom wants to justify its stupid religion of relativity namely GR. Does Tom take full responsibility when this prescalar has to be different from what Tom wishes for? Or is it more cost effective to design in a dynamic prescalar that can be programmed to any value after launch? Tom is now suddenly sweating lead. After whispering into Tom's ears, the stupid god of relativity Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just moves to haunt other Einstein dingleberries and leaves Tom alone to sweat lead. What a fvcking miserable existence Tom finds itself in! <shrug>
Just answer the question. Is the y-axis truly singular or not? The metric
again is:
ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | partso2@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 23:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97f24e73-5cee-490c-8d88-81c2f8200f44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372922 |
I'm interested in cyllindirical symetry solution. Any reference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <carlip-2D62FD.08113105012016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #373331 |
In article <97f24e73-5cee-490c-8d88-81c2f8200f44@googlegroups.com>, partso2@yahoo.com wrote: > I'm interested in cyllindirical symetry solution. Any reference? There's a huge literature on this, but mostly too old to be easily available on the Web (the original analysis goes back to Weyl in 1919). You could look at arXiv:gr-qc/9710122, which has a good list of references, but you'll probably have to get a book. (Synge's _Relativity: The General Theory_ has a very nice chapter, for instance, and Wald's _General Relativity_ has a section.) Steve Carlip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 12:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6382f8a6-e97a-403d-a79f-7eeb3a2a27c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373344 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 8:11:33 AM UTC-8, Steven Carlip wrote: > In article <97f24e73-5cee-490c-8d88-81c2f8200f44@googlegroups.com>, > partso2@yahoo.com wrote: > > > I'm interested in cyllindirical symetry solution. Any reference? > > There's a huge literature on this, but mostly too old to be > easily available on the Web (the original analysis goes back > to Weyl in 1919). You could look at arXiv:gr-qc/9710122, > which has a good list of references, but you'll probably > have to get a book. (Synge's _Relativity: The General Theory_ > has a very nice chapter, for instance, and Wald's _General > Relativity_ has a section.) > > Steve Carlip Also IIRC Chandrasekhar(*) does this in enough detail to claim to have derived Kerr's solution from first principles. I didn't have enough patience to read this through though. (*) "The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes" -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6hdbl$tl0$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373367 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:6382f8a6-e97a-403d-a79f-7eeb3a2a27c3@googlegroups.com... |Also IIRC Chandrasekhar(*) does this in enough detail to claim to have derived |Kerr's solution from first principles. I didn't have enough patience to read |this through though. |(*) "The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes" It's always worthy reminding that mathematics itself doesn't guarentee even consistency. Not talking about sense. If The Shit produced a consistent set of statements about black holes, you wouldn't have to deny your fellow idiot from wikipedy, would you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 14:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <824f76b3-55f9-4b06-8701-72f1253171d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373371 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 1:42:14 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:6382f8a6-e97a-403d-a79f-7eeb3a2a27c3@googlegroups.com... > > |Also IIRC Chandrasekhar(*) does this in enough detail to claim to have > derived > |Kerr's solution from first principles. I didn't have enough patience to > read > |this through though. > |(*) "The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes" > > It's always worthy reminding that mathematics itself > doesn't guarentee even consistency. Not talking about > sense. True but irrelevant. > If The Shit produced a consistent set of statements about > black holes, you wouldn't have to deny your fellow idiot > from wikipedy, would you? Either Wikipedia was wrong (likely) or you misunderstood it (very likely). Actually most likely is that both Wikipedia and yourself were just being sloppy. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50ff3715-a16c-4273-83fd-8d97ec4f8e3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373374 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 2:13:52 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 1:42:14 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > It's always worthy reminding that mathematics itself > > doesn't guarentee even consistency. Not talking about > > sense. > > > If The Shit produced a consistent set of statements about > > black holes, you wouldn't have to deny your fellow idiot > > from wikipedy, would you? > > Either Wikipedia was wrong (likely) or you misunderstood it (very likely). > Actually most likely is that both Wikipedia and yourself were just being > sloppy. A better explanation is that Jan the relativistic moron can only bullshit its ways around. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 09:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6il0n$4pg$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373374 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:824f76b3-55f9-4b06-8701-72f1253171d6@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 1:42:14 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:6382f8a6-e97a-403d-a79f-7eeb3a2a27c3@googlegroups.com... > > |Also IIRC Chandrasekhar(*) does this in enough detail to claim to have > derived > |Kerr's solution from first principles. I didn't have enough patience to > read > |this through though. > |(*) "The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes" > > It's always worthy reminding that mathematics itself > doesn't guarentee even consistency. Not talking about > sense. |True but irrelevant. Well, seems relevant to me. As it is true, even assumning "the mathematical theory of black holes" to be truly mathematical (not likely) - it doesn't even mean it's consistent. Or does it? > If The Shit produced a consistent set of statements about > black holes, you wouldn't have to deny your fellow idiot > from wikipedy, would you? |Either Wikipedia was wrong (likely) or you misunderstood it (very likely). You couldn't be wrong, of course? You're a guru. Can't be wrong like a common mortal, right? Go, consult a doctor, guru. Still, noone is wrong here. Your Shit simply produced inconsistent set of statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 12:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0e8bd7ce-9513-4be5-ad6b-81fd5c721fbc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373396 |
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 12:59:05 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:824f76b3-55f9-4b06-8701-72f1253171d6@googlegroups.com... > > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 1:42:14 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:6382f8a6-e97a-403d-a79f-7eeb3a2a27c3@googlegroups.com... > > > > |Also IIRC Chandrasekhar(*) does this in enough detail to claim to have > > derived > > |Kerr's solution from first principles. I didn't have enough patience to > > read > > |this through though. > > |(*) "The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes" > > > > It's always worthy reminding that mathematics itself > > doesn't guarentee even consistency. Not talking about > > sense. > > |True but irrelevant. > > Well, seems relevant to me. As it is true, even assumning > "the mathematical theory of black holes" to be truly mathematical > (not likely) - it doesn't even mean it's consistent. Or does it? > > > > > If The Shit produced a consistent set of statements about > > black holes, you wouldn't have to deny your fellow idiot > > from wikipedy, would you? > > |Either Wikipedia was wrong (likely) or you misunderstood it (very likely). > > You couldn't be wrong, of course? You're a guru. No. On that particular issue (which burned your butt so badly way back when) I'm correct simply because it's a well-established, simple issue which happens to be also subtle and confusing. > Can't be wrong > like a common mortal, right? You are now making spurious generalisations just to score some cheap rhetorical points. All I'm saying is that on a certain, concrete, issue I was right and either you or Wikipedia (or both) were wrong. This sort of thing can happen in real life, you know. Person A can be right about X, person B can be wrong about X, none of which implies that person A is some sort of "guru" or not a "common mortal". > Go, consult a doctor, guru. > Still, noone is wrong here. Your Shit simply produced inconsistent > set of statement. Nonsense. You simply don't know the subject well enough to make such pronouncements. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 10:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <MMKdnaS0QblOcxbLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #373331 |
On 1/5/16 1/5/16 - 1:30 AM, partso2@yahoo.com wrote: > I'm interested in cyllindirical symetry solution. Any reference? The basic, cylindrically symmetric, vacuum solution to the Einstein field equation is called the Kerr metric (or manifold or spacetime). You can think of it as a model universe containing just a rotating black hole. It has some rather interesting properties, such as two different horizons, and multiple singularities with the limit topology of a ring (T^2xR). It is possible for a timelike object starting from outside both horizons to enter the horizons and travel through that ring into "another universe" that is isometric to the first. That can be done any number of times through any number of singularities into any number of "universes". In contrast, the Schwarzchild manifold has a single horizon, two singularities with the limit topology S^2xR, two "universes", and it is not possible for a timelike object to go from one to the other. It is the Kerr manifold with no rotation, and the ring has "closed up". Google "Kerr spacetime" for lots of references, as this has been studied by many people. It is discussed in every textbook on GR that I have seen. The Kerr-Newman metric adds charge, and remains cylindrically symmetric. The book of solutions referenced by JanPB and Steve Carlip has more.... It can be difficult for non-experts to distinguish sense from nonsense around here, as fools and poseurs claim knowledge they simply don't have. The best way to distinguish them is that fools and idiots do not reference textbooks, while knowledgeable people often do. I recommend: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_ That is a general grad-level textbook. I also like this more advanced book: Hawking and Ellis, _The_Large_Scale_Structure_of_Space-Time_ Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 17:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6gr78$cl7$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373347 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:MMKdnaS0QblOcxbLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |The basic, cylindrically symmetric, vacuum solution to the Einstein field |equation is called the Kerr metric (or manifold or spacetime). You can think of |it as a model universe containing just a rotating black hole. It has some rather |interesting properties, such as two different horizons, and multiple Jedi knights have interesting properties, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 13:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c462aff1-be8c-40df-b091-ca66cd79b18f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373347 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 8:27:01 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 1/5/16 1/5/16 - 1:30 AM, partso2@yahoo.com wrote: > > I'm interested in cyllindirical symetry solution. Any reference? > > The basic, cylindrically symmetric, vacuum solution to the Einstein field > equation is called the Kerr metric (or manifold or spacetime). You can think of > it as a model universe containing just a rotating black hole. It has some rather > interesting properties, such as two different horizons, and multiple > singularities with the limit topology of a ring (T^2xR). It is possible for a > timelike object starting from outside both horizons to enter the horizons and > travel through that ring into "another universe" that is isometric to the first. > That can be done any number of times through any number of singularities into > any number of "universes". There is also "another another" universe (and its replicates) which one enters by crossing the outer horizon and then following a trajectory that follows the sense of rotation much more: this will result in crossing an inner horizon which is _different_ than the "usual" one, ending up in a place "behind" _another_ ring singularity, an attractive one (the original one is repulsive but surrounded by the attractive "one-way street" between the original horizons). Those regions "behind" the ring are not quite isometric to the outer one because they lack horizons. Instead, they have time machines (roughly toroidal regions where d/dphi becomes timelike). This almost certainly means GR is invalid in this regime. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | partso2@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 23:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f1c7d542-2d0a-491e-8284-f342f8b7f665@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373347 |
בתאריך יום שלישי, 5 בינואר 2016 בשעה 18:27:01 UTC+2, מאת tjrob137: > On 1/5/16 1/5/16 - 1:30 AM, pa...@yahoo.com wrote: > > I'm interested in cyllindirical symetry solution. Any reference? > > The basic, cylindrically symmetric, vacuum solution to the Einstein field > equation is called the Kerr metric (or manifold or spacetime). You speak of a single singularity in the origin (mass). However my question about cyllindrycal symmetry is more general. How about an even mass distribution along the z-axis? no rotation, for simplicity. I found no reference for that, but it may be because I didn't know where to look. I've tried to find the metric myself, but got some insensible result. You can think of > it as a model universe containing just a rotating black hole. It has some rather > interesting properties, such as two different horizons, and multiple > singularities with the limit topology of a ring (T^2xR). It is possible for a > timelike object starting from outside both horizons to enter the horizons and > travel through that ring into "another universe" that is isometric to the first. > That can be done any number of times through any number of singularities into > any number of "universes". > > In contrast, the Schwarzchild manifold has a single horizon, > two singularities with the limit topology S^2xR, two > "universes", and it is not possible for a timelike object to > go from one to the other. It is the Kerr manifold with no > rotation, and the ring has "closed up". > > Google "Kerr spacetime" for lots of references, as this has been studied by many > people. It is discussed in every textbook on GR that I have seen. > > The Kerr-Newman metric adds charge, and remains cylindrically symmetric. > > The book of solutions referenced by JanPB and Steve Carlip has more.... > > It can be difficult for non-experts to distinguish sense from > nonsense around here, as fools and poseurs claim knowledge > they simply don't have. The best way to distinguish them is > that fools and idiots do not reference textbooks, while > knowledgeable people often do. I recommend: > Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_ > That is a general grad-level textbook. I also like this more > advanced book: > Hawking and Ellis, _The_Large_Scale_Structure_of_Space-Time_ > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 07:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1b414ae0-a1f8-44f7-8612-fabde7f2dc9a@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? So in short you don't know anything about the subject as this is actually a very simple problem to solve. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 15:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6jcug$1p9q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373405 |
David Waite wrote: > 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? > > So in short you don't know anything about the subject as this is > actually a very simple problem to solve. Got it. Please do, so i CAN learn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 07:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6fbc2f3e-819e-4b9f-bdc4-3a3ced5af045@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373406 |
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 8:47:32 AM UTC-7, Kathleen Winder wrote: > David Waite wrote: > > > 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? > > > > So in short you don't know anything about the subject as this is > > actually a very simple problem to solve. Got it. > > Please do, so i CAN learn. I must have clicked the wrong reply button, because my last post here wasn't intended as a response to the opening poster. There is a list of exact solutions I find of interest at http://www.modernrelativitysite.com/chap9.htm#BM9_3 And some of my videos are about a few, https://www.youtube.com/user/WaiteDavidMSPhysics/videos?sort=dd&shelf_id=3&view=0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web