On May 8, 12:08*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[snip]


Have you personally plug it into the field equations and verify that.
Eric Gisse has the software to do so. *I am sure if that is not a
solution, someone would have complained long ago. *So, the first
equation is still a valid solution to the field equations using the
same coordinate system of (t, r, theta, phi) as the second equation
(the Schwarzschild metric).

This is where your misunderstandings flare up. The coordinate labels
do not matter, but the definitions of the coordinates /do/ and if the /
definitions/ or (t,t,theta,phi) are the same as in Schwarzschild they
are different solutions. However if they are just /labels/, then they
are the same solution because I can [and have] found the isomorphism
between the two supposedly different solutions.

This relates to your inability to compute the area of a sphere - since
you blindingly assert '4pir^2' over and over rather than actually
compute the answer, you cannot see not only why the modern
Schwarzschild solution is preferred but what makes it different from
Hilbert's solution and other iterations.

Plus JanPB is _more_ than capable of computing elements of
differential geometry on his own - he does not need a software
package. The software just makes it crazy easy to dispute your
stupidities.

[snip]