Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #378520

Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution

From	Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution
Date	2016-03-10 22:49 +0100
Organization	ATMAN - ATM S.A.
Message-ID	<nbsq69$kmg$1@node1.news.atman.pl> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <t-udnYxLEspHkUTLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <e268942d-03e8-4d43-aeb2-1bf8aaf9ad3a@googlegroups.com> <0aKdnTBtXYv6NnzLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <nbsl1h$1reb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <632cbe96-46cf-4646-ac83-7353c1262995@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:632cbe96-46cf-4646-ac83-7353c1262995@googlegroups.com...


> > Yes, mathematicians are concerned with such issues.
> > Physicists are not, and the issues you raise are not important in
> > physics, because our manifolds are all well behaved and we don't insist
> > on strict mathematical rigor. The usual line element _CAN_ be used to
> > integrate distance along a line (path), and it _CAN_ be used to read off
> > the metric components in the coordinates used. (IMHO this last is its
> > primary use: as a succinct statement of the metric components.)
> > Physicists' use of the line element became established well before the
> > issues you raise were generally recognized. There's no need for
> > physicists' usage of this to change, though it is certainly possible to
> > use it as you say. Tom Roberts
>
> You are too kind, mister Tom, not saying he talks nonsense. As he thinks
> that two infinitesimally separated points on a sphere are connected by a
> tangent, lol. A mathematical impossibility, no? Ok.

|Newsflash: that's not what I said. What I said was:
|1. "two infinitesimally separated points" is a metaphor, it's not valid
|mathematics. That metaphor is _very_ useful provided you have enough
|experience to know how to work with it correctly,

A lie, as usual from relativistic trash.
What you really said, is:
> Problem is, there is no such thing as "pair of infinitesimally-separated 
> points".

Thread

Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:05 -0800
  Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 22:28 -0800
    Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 22:47 -0800
      Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:01 -0800
        Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:04 -0800
          Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:27 -0800
            Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:28 -0800
              Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:40 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 00:21 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 10:39 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 12:59 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 13:12 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 08:46 -0600
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-24 19:54 +0100
            Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 01:20 -0800
              Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 01:39 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 11:12 +0100
            Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 08:37 -0600
  Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-02-24 07:16 -0800
    Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 22:31 -0800
      Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 06:30 -0800
      Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 09:11 -0800
        Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:13 -0800
      Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 09:38 -0800
        Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:44 +0000
          Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 09:50 -0800
            Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 11:51 -0600
              Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 09:57 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 12:05 -0600
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:19 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:13 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:21 -0800
              Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:05 +0000
      Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 09:48 -0800
      Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-02-25 14:06 -0500
        Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 12:35 -0800
          Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 21:44 +0000
          Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:37 -0500
            Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:11 -0800
              Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:44 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 06:57 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:59 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 07:36 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:45 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 07:37 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:36 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 07:50 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:47 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:44 -0800
          Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:47 -0800
            Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:00 -0800
              Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:09 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:29 -0600
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:43 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-26 23:04 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:59 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:19 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 10:27 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 17:55 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 12:13 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 11:37 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 12:56 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 08:03 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:13 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:26 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 09:36 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:50 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 09:54 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 20:40 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 19:44 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 12:20 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 20:58 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 13:02 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 12:31 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 22:40 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 10:54 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 07:30 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 17:46 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 08:51 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 17:01 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 07:34 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 15:15 -0600
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 19:54 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 08:48 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-28 09:13 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 10:09 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-06 10:56 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:19 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 09:24 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:34 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 09:44 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 19:12 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 10:19 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 11:17 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 17:06 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 17:54 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 19:41 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-04 01:17 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:12 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:53 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 22:19 -0600
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 21:36 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 11:14 -0600
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 18:32 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:22 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:02 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:08 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:19 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:27 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:04 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-11 13:33 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 22:49 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:20 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-05 05:24 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 21:36 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 22:50 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-05 11:24 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 20:07 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 14:49 -0600
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 21:40 +0000
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 18:58 -0600
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 14:04 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:46 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 22:21 -0600
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:42 -0800
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-26 20:00 +0100
                Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:03 +0000
  Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 19:36 -0800
  Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:36 -0800
    Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:33 -0800
      Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 12:05 -0800
        Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:47 -0800
          Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 14:16 -0800
            Re: Schwarzschild's paper and the uniqueness of the solution JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:02 -0800

csiph-web