The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Dec 31, 8:20 am, George Hammond wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

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

It may be "static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat" but I doubt that it satifies R_uv=0

So, you are not sure if that solution above does not satisfy R_uv =
0. Well, Gisse plugged it into his software program and had verified
so a year ago. There are actually infinite solutions to the field
equations that are static (time invariant), spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat (approaching flat spacetime at r = infinity).
Through Koobee Wublee’s theorem or the theorem of Generality below,
you can find any solution you wish the universe to be including the
accelerated expanding universe that still behaves like Newtonian at
relatively smaller distances.

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

Where

** u(r) = Any function of r

For example,

1. If (u = r), then you have the solution above.

2. If (u = r^2 / K), you do not get the Newtonian inverse square law
for gravitation.

3. If (u = (r^3 + K^3)^(1/3) – K), you get Schwarzschild’s original
solution.

4. If (u = K / (K / r + r^2 / L^2)), you get the accelerated
expanding universe at cosmological scales and Newtonian physics at
astronomical scales.

5. If (u = r – K), you get the Schwarzschild metric discovered by
Hilbert.

since Schwarzchild proved that his solution is the ONLY
"static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat"
solution that does!

Notice all the examples above are static and spherically symmetric.
All are asymptotically flat except (4). Thus, Birkhoff’s theorem is
proven utter nonsense by example. shrug

The schwarzchild solution is known to
be the ONLY solution to the spherical mass body problem.

Nonsense!

On Dec 31, 11:00 am, George Hammond wrote:

P.S....The fact that Schwarzchild's solution is the ONLY
spherically symmetric solution to the EFE is known as
"Birkhoff's Theorem".

Nonsense!

On Dec 31, 11:52 am, George Hammond wrote:

P.P.S..... Jorg Jebsen a Norwegian physicist actually
discovered and published Birkhoff's theorem two years
earlier but because he died in poverty of tuberculous in
Italy at the age of 34; when the famous mathematician George
Birkhoff later rediscovered the theorem without knowing of
Jebson's work it was named after him. Alas poor Jebson.

Well, either Jebson and Birkhoff are proven to be very shallow minded
mathematicians, or Koobee Wublee is a great genius able to see through
these nonsense. Well, I will leave it up to you to decide. As you
know, yours truly is still a very humble scholar. You, on the other
hand, need to stick to what you do best. That is preaching to the
already religious SR/GR/Einstein worshippers. shrug

On Dec 31, 8:29*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 31, 8:20 am, George Hammond wrote:



Koobee Wublee wrote:
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

* *It may be "static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat" but I doubt that it satifies R_uv=0

So, you are not sure if that solution above does not satisfy R_uv =
0. *Well, Gisse plugged it into his software program and had verified
so a year ago. *There are actually infinite solutions to the field
equations that are static (time invariant), spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat (approaching flat spacetime at r = infinity).

And all of them describe the same manifold - as told to you a year ago
with the explicit construction of the coordinate transformation
between your "different" manifold and Schwarzschild.


Through Koobee Wublee’s theorem or the theorem of Generality below,
you can find any solution you wish the universe to be including the
accelerated expanding universe that still behaves like Newtonian at
relatively smaller distances.

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

Where

** *u(r) = Any function of r

For example,

1. *If (u = r), then you have the solution above.

2. *If (u = r^2 / K), you do not get the Newtonian inverse square law
for gravitation.

3. *If (u = (r^3 + K^3)^(1/3) – K), you get Schwarzschild’s original
solution.

4. *If (u = K / (K / r + r^2 / L^2)), you get the accelerated
expanding universe at cosmological scales and Newtonian physics at
astronomical scales.

5. *If (u = r – K), you get the Schwarzschild metric discovered by
Hilbert.

....and all of them can be converted into the other with simple
coordinate transformations rendering your argument idiotic.


since Schwarzchild proved that his solution is the ONLY
"static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat"
solution that does!

Notice all the examples above are static and spherically symmetric.
All are asymptotically flat except (4). *Thus, Birkhoff’s theorem is
proven utter nonsense by example. *shrug

The schwarzchild solution is known to
be the ONLY solution to the spherical mass body problem.

Nonsense!

On Dec 31, 11:00 am, George Hammond wrote:

* *P.S....The fact that Schwarzchild's solution is the ONLY
spherically symmetric solution to the EFE is known as
"Birkhoff's Theorem".

Nonsense!

On Dec 31, 11:52 am, George Hammond wrote:

P.P.S..... Jorg Jebsen a Norwegian physicist actually
discovered and published Birkhoff's theorem two years
earlier but because he died in poverty of tuberculous in
Italy at the age of 34; when the famous mathematician George
Birkhoff later rediscovered the theorem without knowing of
Jebson's work it was named after him. *Alas poor Jebson.

Well, either Jebson and Birkhoff are proven to be very shallow minded
mathematicians, or Koobee Wublee is a great genius able to see through
these nonsense. *Well, I will leave it up to you to decide. *As you
know, yours truly is still a very humble scholar. *You, on the other
hand, need to stick to what you do best. *That is preaching to the
already religious SR/GR/Einstein worshippers. *shrug

On Dec 31, 10:00 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 31, 8:29 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Nonsense! There is no coordinate transformation. You don’t
understand the mathematics involved. Go back to be a multi-year super-
senior, and get lost.

So, you are not sure if that solution above does not satisfy R_uv =
0. Well, Gisse plugged it into his software program and had verified
so a year ago. There are actually infinite solutions to the field
equations that are static (time invariant), spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat (approaching flat spacetime at r = infinity).

And all of them describe the same manifold - as told to you a year ago
with the explicit construction of the coordinate transformation
between your "different" manifold and Schwarzschild.

Through Koobee Wublee’s theorem or the theorem of Generality below,
you can find any solution you wish the universe to be including the
accelerated expanding universe that still behaves like Newtonian at
relatively smaller distances.

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

Where

** u(r) = Any function of r

For example,

1. If (u = r), then you have the solution above.

2. If (u = r^2 / K), you do not get the Newtonian inverse square law
for gravitation.

3. If (u = (r^3 + K^3)^(1/3) – K), you get Schwarzschild’s original
solution.

4. If (u = K / (K / r + r^2 / L^2)), you get the accelerated
expanding universe at cosmological scales and Newtonian physics at
astronomical scales.

5. If (u = r – K), you get the Schwarzschild metric discovered by
Hilbert.

...and all of them can be converted into the other with simple
coordinate transformations rendering your argument idiotic.

since Schwarzchild proved that his solution is the ONLY
"static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat"
solution that does!

Notice all the examples above are static and spherically symmetric.
All are asymptotically flat except (4). Thus, Birkhoff’s theorem is
proven utter nonsense by example. shrug

The schwarzchild solution is known to
be the ONLY solution to the spherical mass body problem.

Nonsense!

On Dec 31, 11:00 am, George Hammond wrote:

P.S....The fact that Schwarzchild's solution is the ONLY
spherically symmetric solution to the EFE is known as
"Birkhoff's Theorem".

Nonsense!

On Dec 31, 11:52 am, George Hammond wrote:

P.P.S..... Jorg Jebsen a Norwegian physicist actually
discovered and published Birkhoff's theorem two years
earlier but because he died in poverty of tuberculous in
Italy at the age of 34; when the famous mathematician George
Birkhoff later rediscovered the theorem without knowing of
Jebson's work it was named after him. Alas poor Jebson.

Well, either Jebson and Birkhoff are proven to be very shallow minded
mathematicians, or Koobee Wublee is a great genius able to see through
these nonsense. Well, I will leave it up to you to decide. As you
know, yours truly is still a very humble scholar. You, on the other
hand, need to stick to what you do best. That is preaching to the
already religious SR/GR/Einstein worshippers. shrug

On Dec 31, 9:46*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 31, 10:00 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Dec 31, 8:29 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Nonsense! *There is no coordinate transformation. *You don’t
understand the mathematics involved. *Go back to be a multi-year super-
senior, and get lost.

Liar.

r(R) = 2*R^2/(2*R-G*M)

The coordinate transformation is _right there_. Why don't you check
it?

[snip]

On Dec 31, 11:13 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 31, 9:46 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Nonsense! There is no coordinate transformation. You don’t
understand the mathematics involved. Go back to be a multi-year super-
senior, and get lost.

Liar.

shrug

r(R) = 2*R^2/(2*R-G*M)

The coordinate transformation is _right there_. Why don't you check
it?

No, it is not. There is no merit to suggest a coordinate
transformation. You are just so ignorant. shrug

[snip]

You are just an Einstein worshippers’ prostitute. shrug

On Dec 31, 10:37*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 31, 11:13 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Dec 31, 9:46 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Nonsense! *There is no coordinate transformation. *You don’t
understand the mathematics involved. *Go back to be a multi-year super-
senior, and get lost.

Liar.

shrug

r(R) = 2*R^2/(2*R-G*M)

You never did check those previous two times, either.


The coordinate transformation is _right there_. Why don't you check
it?

No, it is not. *There is no merit to suggest a coordinate
transformation. *You are just so ignorant. *shrug

You didn't even look. If you had looked, you would have noticed I was
pointing to the wrong line element.

Arrogant stupidity saves the day again.

Your "solution" is not a solution.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png


[snip]

You are just an Einstein worshippers’ prostitute. *shrug

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 00:32:38 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse
wrote:

On Dec 31, 10:37*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 31, 11:13 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Dec 31, 9:46 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Nonsense! *There is no coordinate transformation. *You don’t
understand the mathematics involved. *Go back to be a multi-year super-
senior, and get lost.

Liar.

shrug

r(R) = 2*R^2/(2*R-G*M)

You never did check those previous two times, either.


The coordinate transformation is _right there_. Why don't you check
it?

No, it is not. *There is no merit to suggest a coordinate
transformation. *You are just so ignorant. *shrug

You didn't even look. If you had looked, you would have noticed I was
pointing to the wrong line element.

Arrogant stupidity saves the day again.

Your "solution" is not a solution.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png


[Hammond]
It's obvious Kooby is a Hype since he's claiming
Birkhoff's Theorem is "wrong" when the entire field
confirmed it 75 years ago... and since it explains why a
pulsating star cannot emit gravitational waves it must have
sent another thousand LIGO physicists back to check it again
more recently.
You seemed to be convinced Kooby was simply making a
(radial) coordinate transformation and doesn't actually know
this can't affect the vanishing of R_uv... which sounds very
likely .... on the other hand I just guessed that his metric
probably didn't solve R_uv=0, even though he says it does.
His claim of an "infinite number of solutions" certainly
sounds like an infinite numbers of coordinate
transformations, on the other hand the URL you cite above
appears to show that Ricci isn't actually zero for his
metric as he claims. Since he says it is, could this be a
programming glitch and actually you were right the first
time?
I personally still suspect you're right about his
"solutions" being merely coordinate transformations and he
doesn't know it ...but...which explanation of "Koober's
Folly" do you think is right at this point?
By the way, I'm not an expert on "Koobology", but as the
world's leading "PSYCHOPHYSICIST" I would diagnose Kooby as
what Wikipedia defines as a "putz".....e.g. "sham contempt
fueled by high levels of ironic wonder at the simple power
of ham fisted intimidation". Unfortunately in this case he
has been neatly snared by Birkhoff!
=====================================
HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Jan 1, 12:32 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 31, 10:37 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Your "solution" is not a solution.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png

In the following post, I gave you the following solution to the field
equations that obeys Newtonian law of gravity, but this one exhibits
half of the event horizon than the Schwarzschild metric.

ds^2 = c^2 (1 – 2 K / r)^2 dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – K / r)^4 – r^2 dO^2 / (1
– K / r)^2

Where

** K = G M / c^2 / 2, HALF OF THE EVENT HORIZON

Reference post:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...162cddce87191f

With this spacetime, the event horizon occurs at (2 K) which if (G M /
c^2)

A couple posts later, you verified that the above spacetime does
indeed satisfy R_uv = 0 by saying:

“A quick re-roll into grtensor showed that you are, in fact, correct.
It does satisfy R_uv = 0.”

Reference post:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...66880d4c24fdc6

Now, the solution we have been talking about is much simpler than the
one above. If I can derive the above solution from Koobee Wublee’s
theorem or the theorem of Generality, just how much more difficult can
I derive the following?

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

Where

** K = 2 G M / c^2

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png

And just like that last time, you don’t even know how to enter the
inputs correctly. What you have entered is wrong. You need to
replace the 2 instances of (2 K) with K. shrug

On Dec 31, 8:29*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 31, 8:20 am, George Hammond wrote:



Koobee Wublee wrote:
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

* *It may be "static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat" but I doubt that it satifies R_uv=0

So, you are not sure if that solution above does not satisfy R_uv =
0. *Well, Gisse plugged it into his software program and had verified
so a year ago.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/8527/idiotcm5.png

It is not a valid solution of the vacuum field equations. Feel free to
rationalize why you are right even though you are wrong. Again.

Idiot.

[snip rest]