Charged mass exact solutions to Einstein's field equations

On Feb 11, 7:18 pm, David Waite wrote:
On Monday, February 11, 2013, Koobee Wublee wrote:

The Reissner-Nordstrom metric has the following form:

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

Where

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

Well, it does not satisfy the vacuum field equations unless
(L = 0) which becomes the Schwarzschild metric. Thus, the
Reissner-Nordstrom metric is wrong. The closest metric to
Reissner-Nordstrom metric is the one below.

** ds^2 = c^2 T (1 – K / R) dt^2
- dr^2 (dR/dr)^2 / (1 – K / R) – R^2 dO^2

Where

** R = r / (1 – L/K / r)

Torturously listening to these monotonous rambling at 1:30
into the boring presentation, you showed the following metric
as a transformation for the good old Schwarzschild metric.

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

The above metric is wrong in which it does not satisfy the
null Ricci tensor. The solution you are looking for is:

** ds^2 = c^2 T (1 – K / R) dt^2
- dr^2 (dR/dr)^2 / (1 – K / R) – R^2 dO^2

Or

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

Where

** R = r + K

The metric above and the Schwarzschild metric are both valid
solutions to the null Ricci tensor. The Schwarzschild metric
manifests black holes in the infinite future, but the metric
above does not. shrug

The Reisnner-Nordstrom metric has the electric static force
obeying the inverse cubed law instead of inverse squared law.
The self-styled physicists have a better chance of fudged
Coulomb’s law with the following modification to the
Schwarzschild metric.

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

Where

** L = Constant that would make up Coulomb’s law

Waite is becoming an embarrassment to the Einstein Dingleberries,
and GR is becoming a bigger embarrassment to self-styled
physicists. shrug

No the RN metric sin't wrong. Its not supposed to be vacuum.
The electromagnetic field carries stress-energy and so its
not intended to be a vacuum solution.

Waite, you know not what you are talking about. All energy momentum
tensors take place in vacuum except cosmology. Null energy momentum
tensors also cover all binary stars. shrug

Just what do you think the energy momentum tensor is for
electromagnetism anyway? shrug

Its merely an exact solution for the stress-energy tensor of
the electric field from a point charge.

A point charge, by definition, is in vacuum or in air which is close
enough to vacuum for the practical purpose of this discussion.
shrug

No, no where did I transform the RN metric into Schwarzschild.

Koobee Wublee never said you did. shrug

No the RN metric is not a solution for a null Ricci-tensor.

So, why bother? shrug

It merely has a null Ricci-scalar.

You don’t make any sense as usual. You are merely an alchemist of
GR. You know not what you are doing, but you are trying this and that
to see if something happens. You have not understood GR. Better
study up on GR before putting more of your feet in your mouth.
shrug

tow cow?

cow2?

thus quoth:
Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been numerous
explanations of this paradox, many based upon there being no
contradiction because there is no symmetry—only one twin has undergone
acceleration and deceleration, thus differentiating the two cases. Max
von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two
separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way
back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not
the acceleration per se.[1] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein
and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging
as a direct effect of acceleration.[2]

The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise
measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For
example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together
have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment.[3][4]