On Apr 2, 2006, at 7:55 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Not only that Paul, but the singularities future and past are not TINY
POINTS in space, they are INFINITE 3D SPACES AT r*(r = 0) = 0. We slice
into 3 + 1 relative to r*, i.e. dr* = 0 on each slice, and this is an
INFINITE SPACE INSIDE THE FINITE EVENT HORIZON OF TOTAL AREA 4pi(2M)^2
from the HUGE SPACE WARP OF THE SINGULARITIES! YOUR MIND PICTURE IS
COMPLETELY WRONG. YOU ARE THINKING OF A POINT SINGULARITY. THE WHOLE 3D
SPACE (t,theta,phi) is singular as r* -- 0 where also r --- 0. Your
Euclidean intuition is completely wrong here! Maybe that's Abram's
error. It is certainly Puthoff's in his PV SSS exponential metric down
to r -- 0.

Remember spatial infinity is made finite in Penrose's projection.
Everything is warped like an Escher picture.


pastedGraphic.tiff

I & III are outside the 2 event horizon mouths in different parallel
universes of the Einstein-Rosen bridge i.e. r 2M

IV is inside the horizon with the past spacelike singularity

II is inside the horizon with the future spacelike singularity

Both r* = 0 and r = 0 on both of those spacelike singularities that are
INFINITE 3D SPACES where the 4th rank curvature tensor is infinite
everywhere. r* is the interior time and t the interior radial
coordinate. They REVERSE outside of r = 2M where r* = - infinity
(non-rigorously).



penrose.gif
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...f%3D1%26sa%3DG

On Apr 2, 2006, at 6:38 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:


Jack Sarfatti wrote:



On Apr 2, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

OK, I guess I should have taken the trouble to do the algebra.


You mean you didn't? You wasted everyone's time with this nonsense!

Only one or two e-mails.

Jack, you haven't proved that Abrams was wrong about the arguments used by
Kruskal-Fronsdal. You have simply offered a counterexample that if valid
shows
that one need not rely on a Hilbert-type error in order to get an event
horizon with an interior.


So if this is the only substitution that De Witt uses, it would seem that
his treatment does not rely on the error allegedly made by Hilbert.


EXACTLY!

OK.


in 1917 with his r - r*^2 = C(r). If, as you say, all De Witt needs
in order to establish the existence of a coordinate-independent Penrose-
type event horizon at r = 2GM/c^2 is this substitution.

Of course, Abrams' argument was that the Kruskal-Szekeres-Fronsdal
extensions relied on Hilbert's error, which they may well have done,
notwithstanding De Witt's and other contemporary approaches to
solution of the SSS problem..

My question now is, how does De Witt's model relate to those extensions?
Is De Witt's manifold the same as the original extended Hilbert manifold?
Or is it something different?


WHO CARES?

Well, I'm curious.

THAT'S IRRELEVANT! DEWITT HAS THE FINKELSTEIN-KRUSKAL MAX ANALYTIC
EXTENSION USING ONLY

r* = r + 2Mln|r/2M - 1|

and a previous case of Rindler space related to Minkowski space for 1 +
1 space-time.