On Dec 29, 9:41*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 29, 9:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Dec 29, 7:58 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Since the Schwarzschild metric is merely one of the infinite number of
solutions to the Einstein field equations that are static, spherically
symmetric, and asymptotically flat, other solutions do not predict the
same 43”.

Name one that is not related to Schwarzschild through a coordinate
transformation.

Short memory? *You have been told that the following and the
Schwarzschild metric are ones among an infinite solutions to the
Einstein field equations that are static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat.

ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) – (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2
dO^2

Where

** *K, T = Constants
** *dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2

My memory is fine. Yours, though, is quite ****ed.

Back in July of 2007 I gave the explicit coordinate transformation
between your "different" solution and Schwarzschild:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4?dmode=source

Which you promptly ignored / forgot.

You then repeated the same idiocy in May of this year:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2?dmode=source

Funny how you keep repeating the same idiotic and wrong things over,
and over, and over, and over...

Besides, you didn't show that this "different solution" makes a
different prediction. You are unable to do anything but copy and paste
out of textbooks, as you can't even do a simple area calculation from
a given metric.


Again, notice this solution does not manifest black holes. *shrug

Oh, is this another one of your "by inspection" routines? Like how you
think you can see there is curvature "by inspection"?


With inability to learn, that explains why you remain a multi-year
super-senior today? *Apparently, that free money the state of Alaska
provides must go a long way for you.

I'm not the one who can't follow a basic derivation of Birkhoff's
theorem.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...199f8c2bf4c127

I'm not the one who can't follow through the simplest steps of
deriving the field equations.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a48e445c49364e

I'm not the one who thinks you can determine curvature by inspection.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...0?dmode=source

I'm not the one who does not believe in differential equation
uniqueness theorems.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...0?dmode=source

I'm not the one who has repeatedly claimed that you can introduce
curvature with a coordinate transformation.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d?dmode=source

I'm not the one who doesn't understand basic notation, what a tensor
is, what proper time is, etc etc and ETC.

Inability to learn INDEED.


[snip perennial whining crap as usual]