Koobee Wublee wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 12:47:21 -0700:

** Professor Carlip is the type that he’d rather cease to exist before
accepting what he and others have been taught was total garbage right
from the very start. Don’t expect him to offer any comments.

Hum. My recent work about Newtonian limit difficulties of GR shows Carlip
is completely wrong about a lot of basic stuff.

He is extensively cited in appendix because join all misconception at
once: time implicit potentials, Newton-Poisson vs Einstein-Poisson,
harmonic nonharmonic coordinates, physical unphysical boundaries, unitary
evolution...

It is very interesting that expertises on the topic who has reviewed my
work have not found serious mistake. Of course, it may remain mistakes
still but are not easily detected with our current understanding. This
and future generation will find any remaining mistake from mine.

It is a true pity could not speak about that in international conferences
in cosmologies

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...lsciencetoday/
canonicalsciencetoday.html

But i promise that stuff will be broadly distributed. It seems to me this
is similar to recent string theory scandal.

I do not expect Carlip to offer any comments neither help on my research
of course. But maybe i would wait some public comment paper from Carlip,
once my paper was available.

Then the whole stuff would be very interesting.

On May 18, 9:40*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 18, 3:22*am, Mike wrote:





On May 15, 8:04*pm, JanPB wrote:

On May 14, 10:08*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On May 14, 7:10 am, Mike wrote:

On May 13, 5:46 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The spacetime described by the Schwarzschild metric only applied to
the spherically symmetric polar coordinate. *You are welcome to
transform to another coordinate system with a different metric.

No, the Schwarzschild metric IS the metric. There is no such thing as
Schwarzschild metric in a coordinate system with a metric.

Mathematically, you are just wrong. *For example, describing flat
spacetime using the linear rectangular (Euclidean) and using the
spherically symmetric polar coordinate systems require you to supply
different metric for each choice of coordinate system. *shrug

No, it's the same metric in both cases, e.g. in the plane the
following are equal:

* * dx^2 + dy^2

and:

* * dr^2 + r^2 dtheta^2

...where x = r cos(theta) and y = r sin(theta) (polar coordinates)..

What KW is saying, which is obvious to a 10 years old buy NOT TO YOU,
it's that the metric, without the corresponding set, does not specify
a geometry.

YOU ASSUME a priori --- somethign that he does not --- that if someone
tells you the metric is:

dr^2 + r^2 dtheta^2

then you know that:

x = r cos(theta) and y = r sin(theta)

Why don't you show us how you would transform the metric in Cartesian
coordinates to polar coordinates. I mean do the actual calculation.



Although this is a trivial example you presented and in most cases
someone will assume that, he is saying that in general, without the
coordinate transformation to (x,y), given the above metric, you cannot
deduce it is equivalent to dx^2 + dy^2.

Yes, you can. He did it explicitly - calculate the length of a vector.
Scalar quantities are independent of coordinates.

You can also brute force it. Can you guess how one might do that?


When you understand you are a troll, when you understand you ate
nothing but an incompetent individual who fails common sense tests,
you may become a better person.

You stupid troll, the calculated the length of the vector after
assuming the transformation. Given the metric dr^2 + r^2 dtheta^2
without the coordinate transformation it is impossible to prove it is
equivalent to dx^2 + dy^2.

In other words, you stupid totally insane troll, without knowing the
geometry, it is impossible to deduce metric equivalence.

Now, get a life.

Mike




[snip whining]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 18, 3:47*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 18, 4:22 am, Mike wrote:

On May 15, 8:04 pm, JanPB wrote:
No, it's the same metric in both cases, e.g. in the plane the
following are equal:

* * dx^2 + dy^2

and:

* * dr^2 + r^2 dtheta^2

...where x = r cos(theta) and y = r sin(theta) (polar coordinates)..

What KW is saying, which is obvious to a 10 years old buy NOT TO YOU,
it's that the metric, without the corresponding set, does not specify
a geometry.

Yes, a metric without a set of coordinate system cannot possibly
describe the geometry. *Thank you. *This is indeed something a 10-year
old kid learning geometry would have no problem understanding this.
These matheMagicians practice the dark side of mathematics.

I start being very suspicious of their mental capacity.



YOU ASSUME a priori --- somethign that he does not --- that if someone
tells you the metric is:

dr^2 + r^2 dtheta^2

then you know that:

x = r cos(theta) and y = r sin(theta)

Once again, you are correct. *Thanks for pointing this one out. *It is
his priori that is confusing himself.

Although this is a trivial example you presented and in most cases
someone will assume that, he is saying that in general, without the
coordinate transformation to (x,y), given the above metric, you cannot
deduce it is equivalent to dx^2 + dy^2.

I am jumping for joy. *Someone finally understands what I have been
saying in the past two years.

I think it is obvious that you manipulate words in a way to suit you.
You distort other peoples arguments and you present trivial examples
that do not correspond to the original problem posed.

What do you expect someone who worships the nonsense of GR and SR.
shrug

Hilbert, Klein, and the rest all knew the field equations yield an
infinite number of solutions. *Being very smart, they just walked away
from it. *That left Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
to carry the banner to accept all credit that is not anything
representing his work.

More importantly, Karatheodori, the famous mathematician, pointed out
the error to Einstein and in a famous letter back to Karatheodori,
Eistein replied with a total non-sense argument, the same type of
arguments you get here from those incompetent individuals.




You, PD, Roberts, Carlipp and other not worth mentioning all exhibit
the same exact pattern of behavior.

From the posts I have seen among all these professors. *The following
are the profiles I have compiled of them.

** *Professor Carlip is the type that he’d rather cease to exist
before accepting what he and others have been taught was total garbage
right from the very start. *Don’t expect him to offer any comments.

** *Professor Roberts on the other hand will listen to arguments. *He
is beginning to show signs of defection from the camp of Einstein
Dingleberries. However, he must be very careful doing that because of
his new job. *I have no doubt he will publish something posthumously
to clear up his position just like Copernicus or go public in the last
moments of his productive life just like Constantine accepted
Christianity at his deathbed.

ROberts is smart. He is trying though to push forward a different
version of Relativity that replaces the constancy of speed of light
with "pion beams". He has also semi-accpted that this is not
Einstein's SR but some other type of Relativity theory.

You may have noticed some "quick" responsesof Carlip to Roberts posts
but the latter refrains from attacks possibly because he has reasons
for that.



** *Professor Drape is very mentally challenged. *I don’t think he
knows what he is teaching is lying.


SR is the bigegst scientific lie ever. But you and I know why it is
still surviving. They have decided to attack logic than to drop SR.

Mike



I wonder if behind all these nicknames there is just one person, or
several persons instructred by the same person on how to act.

Remember, a 10 year old understands you are wrong. How long are you
going to play this game?

Mr. Bielawski will retreat back in his fat castle in the air until the
sheriff to come to kick him out. *shrug

On May 16, 11:48*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 16, 5:45 am, PD wrote:

On May 16, 1:24 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
You are making the same mistake again. *What you refer to is the
geometry itself not the metric.

Then you are suffering from a basic misalignment on terminology. The
metric *is* the geometry. That's the point.

Consider the Schwarzschild spacetime as described below.

ds^2 = c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – dr^ / (1 – 2 U) – r^2 dO^2

Where

** *U = G M / c^2 / r

** *The geometry is ds^2.

Uh, no. That is the measure. Please proceed to real analysis, do not
pass go, do not collect $20.


** *The coordinate is (t, r, O) or (t, r, longitude, latitude).

** *The metric is

[c^2 (1 – 2 U), 0, 0, 0]
[0, 1 / (1 – 2 U), 0, 0]
[0, 0, r^2 cos^2(latitude), 0]
[0, 0, 0, r^2]

According to the mathematics of the field equations and thus GR, the
metric is not the geometry, and this is very obvious as explained
above.

If you cannot understand this, you are not fit to teach. *If you
understand this, your claim is an utter lie. *That would make it
(LYING IS TEACHING) on your part. *shrug

Either way, you are not fit to teach. *How can I be so point blank?

The equations above represent the
same geometry, yes. *They are equivalent. *However, the coordinates
are different, and the metrics are different. *The metric cannot
adequately describe the geometry despite your voodoo conjectures of
dot products, and the coordinates itself cannot adequately describe
the geometry. *It takes both well specified coordinate systems and the
metrics to fully describe the geometries. *shrug

We cannot go on without you understand my point of view, and I have
understood yours and pointed the errors in your logic. *If you are not
malicious as Eric Gisse is, you need to understand my point of view.
shrug

Mike wrote on Mon, 19 May 2008 06:18:01 -0700:

ROberts is smart. He is trying though to push forward a different
version of Relativity that replaces the constancy of speed of light with
"pion beams".

From where you got this Mike?

You may have noticed some "quick" responsesof Carlip to Roberts posts
but the latter refrains from attacks possibly because he has reasons for
that.

Could you point one of those quick responses?


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...uidelines.html

On May 19, 12:33*pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Mike wrote on Mon, 19 May 2008 06:18:01 -0700:

ROberts is smart. He is trying though to push forward a different
version of Relativity that replaces the constancy of speed of light with
"pion beams".

From where you got this Mike?

Read this post carefully, especially by the end:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...df62d96738c621



You may have noticed some "quick" responsesof Carlip to Roberts posts
but the latter refrains from attacks possibly because he has reasons for
that.

Could you point one of those quick responses?

Here is one where Carlip is blasting Roberts:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3d4f3aea29251d

I hope those help


Mike




--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html

On May 18, 3:47*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 18, 4:22 am, Mike wrote:

On May 15, 8:04 pm, JanPB wrote:
No, it's the same metric in both cases, e.g. in the plane the
following are equal:

* * dx^2 + dy^2

and:

* * dr^2 + r^2 dtheta^2

...where x = r cos(theta) and y = r sin(theta) (polar coordinates)..

What KW is saying, which is obvious to a 10 years old buy NOT TO YOU,
it's that the metric, without the corresponding set, does not specify
a geometry.

Yes, a metric without a set of coordinate system cannot possibly
describe the geometry. *Thank you. *This is indeed something a 10-year
old kid learning geometry would have no problem understanding this.
These matheMagicians practice the dark side of mathematics.

YOU ASSUME a priori --- somethign that he does not --- that if someone
tells you the metric is:

dr^2 + r^2 dtheta^2

then you know that:

x = r cos(theta) and y = r sin(theta)

Once again, you are correct. *Thanks for pointing this one out. *It is
his priori that is confusing himself.

Although this is a trivial example you presented and in most cases
someone will assume that, he is saying that in general, without the
coordinate transformation to (x,y), given the above metric, you cannot
deduce it is equivalent to dx^2 + dy^2.

I am jumping for joy. *Someone finally understands what I have been
saying in the past two years.

I think it is obvious that you manipulate words in a way to suit you.
You distort other peoples arguments and you present trivial examples
that do not correspond to the original problem posed.

What do you expect someone who worships the nonsense of GR and SR.
shrug

Hilbert, Klein, and the rest all knew the field equations yield an
infinite number of solutions. *Being very smart, they just walked away
from it. *That left Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
to carry the banner to accept all credit that is not anything
representing his work.

Here is a post from Carlip that admits that:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3d4f3aea29251d

Mike





You, PD, Roberts, Carlipp and other not worth mentioning all exhibit
the same exact pattern of behavior.

From the posts I have seen among all these professors. *The following
are the profiles I have compiled of them.

** *Professor Carlip is the type that he’d rather cease to exist
before accepting what he and others have been taught was total garbage
right from the very start. *Don’t expect him to offer any comments.

** *Professor Roberts on the other hand will listen to arguments. *He
is beginning to show signs of defection from the camp of Einstein
Dingleberries. However, he must be very careful doing that because of
his new job. *I have no doubt he will publish something posthumously
to clear up his position just like Copernicus or go public in the last
moments of his productive life just like Constantine accepted
Christianity at his deathbed.

** *Professor Drape is very mentally challenged. *I don’t think he
knows what he is teaching is lying.

I wonder if behind all these nicknames there is just one person, or
several persons instructred by the same person on how to act.

Remember, a 10 year old understands you are wrong. How long are you
going to play this game?

Mr. Bielawski will retreat back in his fat castle in the air until the
sheriff to come to kick him out. *shrug

Mike wrote on Mon, 19 May 2008 10:02:15 -0700:

On May 19, 12:33Â*pm, "Juan R." González-Ã�lvarez
wrote:
Mike wrote on Mon, 19 May 2008 06:18:01 -0700:

ROberts is smart. He is trying though to push forward a different
version of Relativity that replaces the constancy of speed of light
with "pion beams".

From where you got this Mike?

Read this post carefully, especially by the end:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...elativity/msg/
eddf62d96738c621

Fixed :-)


You may have noticed some "quick" responsesof Carlip to Roberts posts
but the latter refrains from attacks possibly because he has reasons
for that.

Could you point one of those quick responses?

Here is one where Carlip is blasting Roberts:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3d4f3aea29251d

I hope those help

Yes did. Thanks

--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...uidelines.html

On May 19, 9:02*am, Mike wrote:
[snip]

Do you ever get tired of lying?

Mike wrote on Mon, 19 May 2008 10:02:15 -0700:

On May 19, 12:33Â*pm, "Juan R." González-Ã�lvarez
wrote:
Mike wrote on Mon, 19 May 2008 06:18:01 -0700:

ROberts is smart. He is trying though to push forward a different
version of Relativity that replaces the constancy of speed of light
with "pion beams".

From where you got this Mike?

Read this post carefully, especially by the end:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...elativity/msg/
eddf62d96738c621



You may have noticed some "quick" responsesof Carlip to Roberts posts
but the latter refrains from attacks possibly because he has reasons
for that.

Could you point one of those quick responses?

Here is one where Carlip is blasting Roberts:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3d4f3aea29251d

I hope those help


Mike


About your ODE query i think this link may be helpful:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e7633a0e8130f8

Yes the 'master' does not know what are the units for V / c^2, where V
denotes a gravitational potential.

Enjoy!


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...uidelines.html