Discussion : Magneto

AlphaNumeric's latest slew of criticisms are, once again, bang on the money. Your reply is devoid of any meaningful content and does nothing to address the points raised.

The contents of this thread indicate that Robert Louis Kemp, author of the self-published book "Super Principia Mathematica", is a complete fraud.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're the guy who said the SC metric wa a Euclidean metric with a scaling factor, which I had to correct you on. You're hardly in a position to claim you understand this stuff.

Further more you are wrong. The \(r^{2}(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2})\) part of the metric is a spherical metric and therefore not Euclidean but r is not a constant. If you set r to be a constant then you have to include in your considerations the fact that x,y,z must satisfy \(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} = r^{2}\). This formula defines a 2 dimensional variety within \(\mathbb{R}^{3}\) and its that which guides the form of x,y,z in terms of the spherical coordinates. When you allow r to be varied you then consider are considering a 'leaf' (if I remember my terminology correctly), where varying r over \([0,\infty)\) sweeps out all of \(\mathbb{R}^{3}\). Thus \(ds^{2} = dr^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2})\) is Euclidean, it just happens to have the form which makes defining non-Euclidean 2 dimensional regions quite easy. I could have just as easily converted into hyperbolic coordinates and allowed for an easy definition of a family of hyperbolic submanifolds. In fact that's precisely how you go about considering AdS space, you view it as a hyperbolic surface in a higher dimensional Euclidean space. This allows you to define a boundary for it and that's the basis of the gravity/gauge duality conjecture, which my second published paper pertained to.

This isn't stuff which is advanced or 'out there', this is bread and butter GR and the fact you don't know just shows your work is nonsense. The fact you can't face up to it, even when I correct you on almost everything you say which isn't just a copy and paste from Wikipedia shows you're a mixture of delusional and dishonest.

I didn't try to prove anything about starting with Cartesians. I was explaining to you a basic result which you didn't understand.

As for SC picking spherical coordinates, he was considering a spherically symmetric system so those coordinates are a natural choice. Besides, as any good GR researcher (or student) knows coordinates are a matter of preference and convention. The SC coordinates are nice to illustrate the event horizon but they are very poor for describing the motion of things crossing the event horizon, other coordinates are better.

How so, I've schooled you on just about everything you've said. You haven't retorted my corrections of you, you haven't demonstrated I've been mistaken, you haven't provided the derivations you claim to have. You haven't met this challenge, wanting to have a do over is just an attempt to wipe your mistakes away. I stand by my corrections of your mistakes and if anyone else wants me to explain anything I've said further I'll happily oblige, I have nothing to hide. That attitude is not something you seem to share, as you avoid direct questions and thus violated the rules you agreed to.

And since we're calling an end to this I declare you a thoroughly dishonest, deceptive delusional hack who I'm certain couldn't do homework exercises I did as a 1st year, let along get a job with Kip Thorne doing GR research. Every single one of your posts in this thread which has contained mathematics has been wrong in some way and not one of my demonstrations of these mistakes have you retorted.

I suggest you go find another forum where you can lie to people without fear of someone with more education, ability and knowledge than you coming along and showing you up. Unfortunately such people likely lack the capacity to use computers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AlphaNumeric, although I do consider this challenge complete, I want to complete the process of your "Conversion!!"

So I will honor my word and construct the complete Schwarzschild Metric (SC) that you have asked me for!

But, first I want to comment on this:

I do not particularly like, nor do I endorse the using "Natural Units" as you describe above. And the use of these "natural units" as a shortcut has been spreading like a cancer throughout physics over the last ten (10) years. To the PhD types this kind of normalizing is fine. Over the last ten (10) years mostly all PhD in physics have learned, and become quite comfortable with normalizing through "Quantum Mechanics." And since they have become so comfortable with it, it has moved into "GR."

Then the PhDs, they criticize others for not being smart enough to take the same shortcuts that they are using. So those coming up from behind, follow suit and conform; some just to be accepted, and others learn to like this shortcut for themselves, once "Converted."

I am not anti-establishment, I myself am currently seeking a PhD and want to be a part of the establishment, but what I am anti, is against pushing your shortcuts on me, and getting mad at me for not taking the same short cuts as you.

However, what is missed, in discarding the units is that the units themselves are also conveying a form of physics that helps to give insight into the solution. However, setting the units equal to one (1) they have just tossed lots of valuable information into the waste basket; just by setting physical measurable parameters equal to one (1), (i.e. . \(\ c^_{Light} = 1\), ...\(\ G = 1\))

Speed of Light - - \(\ c_{Light} -> \frac{m}{s}\)

Universal Gravitational Constant - - \(G -> \frac{m^3}{kgs^2}\)

Schwarzschild Radius - - \(r_{S} -> m \)

Net Inertial Mass - - \(m_{net} -> kg\)


It is not that using "Natural Units" is incorrect; it is just a shortcut, or lazy mathematics!

For example, you want me to write this:

\(r_{S} = {2m_{Net}}\)

I am not sure what to write for the units above, is it (kg) or (m)??

When the correct solution is this:

\(r_{S} = \frac{2m_{Net}G}{c^2_{Light}} = \frac{m_{Net}}{\mu_{S}}\)\( -> m\)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Derivation of General Relativity Metrics

I have already derived the basics for a General Relativity Metric earlier, so I will only add to what we learned. here!

The Euclidean metric:

The Euclidean Metric is the net sum and is comprised of two components: 1) a three dimensional radial space component and, 2) a two dimensional directional component. The Result is a three dimensional element vector (space, latitude, longitude)


\(ds^{2} = dr^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin(\theta)^{2}d\phi^{2})\) \( -> m^2 \).


The Minkowiski/Einstein Metric:

The Minkowiski/Einstein Metric is also considered Euclidean, is a net difference, and is comprised of two components: 1) a three dimensional space-time radial component and, 2) a two dimensional directional component.The Result is a four dimensional element vector (space, time, latitude, longitude).


\(ds^{2} = ({c^2_{Light}}dt^{2}) - r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin(\theta)^{2}d\phi^{2})\) \( -> m^2 \).


Where the space-time radial component is given by,

\(dr^{2} = ({c^2_{Light}}dt^{2})\) \( -> m^2 \).


The Schwarzschild "Expansion" Metric:

The Schwarzschild Expansion Metric is Non-Euclidean, is the net sum, and is comprised of two components: 1) a three dimensional expansion of space-time radial component and, 2) a two dimensional directional component. The Result is a four dimensional element vector (space, time, latitude, longitude).


\(ds^{2} = f(r)^{-1}dr^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin(\theta)^{2}d\phi^{2})\) \( -> m^2 \).


\(ds^{2} = \frac{dr^{2}}{(1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r}))} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin(\theta)^{2}d\phi^{2})\) \( -> m^2 \).


Where, the Space-time Expansion term is given by,

\(dS^{2} = \frac{dr^{2}}{(1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r}))} \) \( -> m^2 \).

The above Spacetime Expansion term is Non-Euclidean and is infinite at the Schwarzschild Radius (\(r = r_{S}\) ------> \(dS^{2} = infinity \)). This is also called a singulary at the Event Horizon.

And at large distances becomes Euclidean or Flat (\(r = infinity \) ------> \(dS^{2} = dr^{2}\)).

A coordinate transformation can be peformed here to resolve singulary at the Event Horizon. Space and time behave very different near the black hole event horizon because of this term. This term predicts that in a strong graviational field which is near the Event Horizon Light is more blue near this region, and said to blue shift or to decrease the wavelength. And as that same light pulse is moving away from the event horizon and moving towards the weaker strength of the gravitational field the light pulse will redshift or increase in wavelength.

It is a challange and it can be proven that the above Space-time Expansion term is found in the Einstein Field Equation below.

The Ricci Flow Curvature Tensor \( [R_{ab} - G_{ab}] = [\frac{1}{2}R g_{ab} - \Lambda g_{ab}] = [\frac{g_{ab}}{S^{2}}]\) is the measure of the elastic expansion of curvature of spacetime and is a measure of the difference between the Mininum Geodesic and the Maximum Geodesic of the System.


The Schwarzschild "Field" Metric:

The Schwarzschild "Field" Metric is Non-Euclidean, is the net difference, and is comprised of three components: 1) a three dimensional "Non Eucldiean" expansion of space-time radial component and, 2) a two dimensional directional component, 3) a three dimensional "Euclidean" gradient field which is space and time radial component. The Result is still a four dimensional element vector (space, time, latitude, longitude).


\(ds^{2} = f(r)({c^2_{Light}}dt^{2}) - f(r)^{-1}dr^{2} - r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin(\theta)^{2}d\phi^{2})\) \( -> m^2 \).


\(ds^{2} = (1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r}))({c^2_{Light}}dt^{2}) - \frac{dr^{2}}{(1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r}))} - r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin(\theta)^{2}d\phi^{2})\) \( -> m^2 \).


In my opinion a really good interpretion of what this equation is doing is needed? This is not a normal Metric, and is filled with treasure trove of information.

The Gravity Gradient Field Potential Term is Euclidean and is given by

\(ds^2_{Field} = f(r)({c^2_{Light}}dt^{2}) = (1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r}))({c^2_{Light}}dt^{2}) \)\( -> m^2 \).

The above Gravity Gradient Field Term is distance dependent.

Where Gravity Gradient Field term is given by

\(f(r) = (1 - (\frac{\mu_{G}}{\mu_{S}})) = (1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r})) = (1 - 2(\frac{v^2_{Gravity}}{c^2_{Light}})) \) \( -> Unitless \).

Derivation of Gravity Gradient Field Term

This Universal Inertial Linear Mass Density constant, I posit is a constant that is at the source of every Gravitational Field.

\(\mu_{S} = \frac{m_{Net}}{r_{S}} = \frac{c^2_{Light}}{2G} = Constant\)\( -> kg/m\)


The Above Constant is the "String" in "String Theory." This above constant is like a spacetime sheet, that when disturbed or stretched, or in resonance in a particular locale, mass or matter is produced; Which is why you can write (\(r_{S} \prop {m_{Net}})\). I am not sure but this could be the source of the "Higgs Field" is my speculation.


"Inertial Linear Mass Density Gradient Gravitational Field" This gradient field diminishes as the distance increases relative to the center of the system. This Gradient Field, Inertial Linear Mass Density term behaves or varies like a Gravitational Potential Energy term.

\(\mu_{G} = \frac{m_{Net}}{r} = \frac{v^2_{Gravity}}{G}\)\( -> kg/m\)

Next we take the ratio of the two Linear Mass Density terms above to obtain the Schwarzschild distance ratio that is at the heart of the Schwarzschild Metric (SC).

\(\frac{\mu_{G}}{\mu_{S}} = \frac{r_{S}}{r} = 2(\frac{v^2_{Gravity}}{c^2_{Light}})\)\( -> Unitless\)

Next taking the difference between the two terms and multiplying by 2 yields the definition for the Gravitational Gradient Field Potential.

\(2(\mu_{S} - \mu_{G}) = 2(\frac{c^2_{Light}}{2G} - \frac{v^2_{Gravity}}{G}) = 2\(\frac{m_{Net}}{r_{S}} - \frac{m_{Net}}{r})\)\( -> kg/m\)

Next multiplying both sides by the Universal Gravitational Constant (G), and making the following definition.

\(\frac{ds^2_{Field}}{dt^2} = \2(\mu_{S} - \mu_{G}){G} = ({c^2_{Light}} - 2{v^2_{Gravity}}) = 2\(\frac{m_{Net}}{r_{S}} - \frac{m_{Net}}{r}\)G\)\( -> m^2/s^2\)

\(\frac{ds^2_{Field}}{dt^2} = c^2_{Light}(1 - 2(\frac{v^2_{Gravity}}{c^2_{Light}})) = 2\frac{m_{Net}G}{r_{S}}\(1 - \frac{r_{S}}{r}\)\)\( -> m^2/s^2\)

Next multiplying both sides by time value \({dt^2}\), to obtain the Field Metric (\(ds^2_{Field}\))

\(ds^2_{Field} = (1 - 2(\frac{v^2_{Gravity}}{c^2_{Light}}))(c^2_{Light}{dt^2}) = 2\frac{m_{Net}G}{r_{S}}\(1 - \frac{r_{S}}{r}\){dt^2}\)\( -> m^2\)

\(ds^2_{Field} = (1 - \frac{r_{S}}{r}\)(c^2_{Light}{dt^2}) \)\( -> m^2\)


AlphaNumeric, this concludes the derivation of The Schwarzschild Metric (SC)

 

And now this thread demonstrates to the general public that Robert Louis Kemp, author of the self-published book "Super Principia Mathematica", doesn't know what it means to derive the Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein equations.

I'm left wondering, what does Robert Kemp understand about general relativity?

 

Once again you are daft enough to try to tell me my business. Using natural units isn't some new fade from quantum mechanics, it is decades old. If you don't know something don't make it up, you only end up looking like a lying idiot.

No, you didn't derive 'the bsics for GR'. You stated a series of well known identities which people learn years before doing GR. I commented on this and you have failed to respond. Simply ignoring criticism and proclaiming you've done something which no one else agrees with is dishonest.

I already commented on specifically this. The Minkowski metric is not Euclidean. The metric is in 4D and if it were Euclidean it'd have a trace of 4, it is has a trace of 2. I specifically commented on this, that metric has Lorentz invariance, ie SO(3,1), not just rotational invariance SO(4). There is no two ways about this, you are just wrong and it is again such a basic, simple fundamental concept that to repeatedly state it shows you are ignorant, you have no interest in learning and you don't bother to check your claims.

You still haven't grasped the notion of components in vectors I see.

When someone corrects you the intellectually honest thing to do is go check on what they said to see if they are right. I've provided repeated corrections on a multitude of things, providing many a walk through of your mistakes, and it seems you just ignore them all.

You missed out the \(dt^{2}\) term. Don't you even know the metric you're claiming to construct?

No, it is called a coordinate singularity. There is no singularity, in the physical sense, at the event horizon.

In GR flat and Euclidean are not synonymous.

The majority of the rest of your post is clearly you just copying and pasting from your book again. As I said before, if you can't engage in discussion it makes you seem dishonest and it makes it seem like you don't understand what you're talking about. Can't you weave your own work into a proper narrative relevant to the discussion? Must you always fall back on a mindless talking about?

I asked you some direct questions before pertaining to this. Why did you post a load of stuff on hyper spheres when you're aware, if you understood some of my thesis, that I have experience with hyper spheres? Why did you throw in something which was irrelevant and something I am much more familiar with than you?

You not replying doesn't bother me much, you've made such a train wreck of your attempt to justify your claims your continued dishonest only serves to make this demonstration that you're a dishonest hack all the more stark.

That isn't the derivation at all. If you'd read any books on black holes or GR in general or even bothered to find out about Birkhoff's theorem (which I've mentioned) you'd know what I'm asking. I'm asking you to start from nothing more than just the Einstein field equations and basic differential geometry and to construct the solution to said equations in the case where \(T_{ab} = 0\) except for a point of mass \(M\) at a specific location. The SC metric is the \(g_{ab}\) which solves the Einstein field equations for that physical setup.

To give you some help, which you obviously desperately need, Birkhoff does it by noting the problem is equivalent to saying \(R_{ab} = 0\), as per the equations, except for the point mass, and then solving those partial differential equations for the components of g. You should then end up with

\((ds)^{2} = \left( 1 - \frac{2M}{r} \right) (dt)^{2} - \left( 1 - \frac{2M}{r} \right)^{-1} (dr)^{2} + r^{2} d\Omega_{2}\)

That is what you are supposed to provide. Instead you just make mistakes and make things up.

Speaking of which shall I take it from your silence on the matter that you conceed that \(dr^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2})\) is indeed Euclidean? You should have known this, seeing as its just spherical coordinates, but you didn't. Do you now admit that it is Euclidean and that your laughable attempt to claim otherwise by mixing Cartesian and spherical coordinates here was wrong? Did you work through the algebra yourself and see they do indeed convert into one another, thus explicitly demonstrating your claim to be false?

This typifies your attitude, you make claims you don't back up, I prove them wrong with explicit derivations and then rather than say "Yes, turned out I was mistaken" you just move onto another fallacy and spout more nonsense.

You won't get one anywhere reputable, I guarantee. You don't have the right attitude for research, you don't have knowledge expected of physics undergrads, you don't accept any mistake, you're willing to simply make things up, you plagiarise, you ignore anything which doesn't gel with your preconceptions and you have a delusional view of your own capabilities.

You're a different kind of crank from say Reiku or Farsight. Reiku is just a BS spouting machine, he makes pretty much everything up. Farsight knows he can't do any mathematics so he comes up with excuses not to engage people in discussion on it. You think you can do it because you have some vague semblances on how to differentiate and combine vectors. This is an example of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. I'd put your vector calculus skills at about the level of a high schooler who could pass an exam but not do well in it, you certainly don't meet basic undergraduate requirements at any reputable university whose teaching material I'm familiar with. You know what things like sin and cos are and how to dot vectors together and you somehow therefore infer you understand tensors, which you blatantly do not.

I've asked you direct questions, I've provided retorts (ie explicit demonstrations you're wrong) to your claims and I've requested you stop just mindlessly copying and pasting and actually engage in discussion. Each time you ignore these you just add further weight to the accusation you're a crank. I'm replying to all the points you make with my own words and with details I can provide references for. When I ask you for a reference you ignore me or cite yourself. That's circular reasoning.

If you decide to post again bear that in mind, all you appear to be doing at the moment is digging yourself in deeper.

 

Par for the course.

Magneto: you're wasting your time talking to this guy. You give him the discussion he demands, and he's still an abusive troll.

 

Yes, it is par for Magneto's course. He tried to tell me what 'fluxes' mean when the word appears in my thesis title. When Magneto doesn't know something he doesn't say "I don't know", he makes things up to try to seem like he knows. The fact he would try to make up a definition for 'fluxes' in a discussion with me just shows how naturally deceit comes to him.

I started out pleasant, I offered to give references, I walked him through mistakes.. All of it just washed off him and he continued to repeat mistakes I've already addressed. I adhered to the rules at the start, Magneto failed to.

Besides, at least Magneto had the self conviction to take me up on a discussion. You've been avoiding an informed discussion for years. I guess you could learn something from one another. You can see that if you really believed the claims you make you'd be willing to defend them and Magneto can see what happens to someone when their self published book failed to get any attention, all journals reject you and you're stuck on internet forums whining you're the next big thing in physics :roflmao: If Magneto isn' careful he could end up like you! How is your continued effort to break out of obscurity and failure going?

Furthermore, do you agree with Magneto about everything he's said? Do you think the Minkowski metric is Euclidean? I suppose even his, incorrect, mathematics is beyond your grasp so there's very little here you can actually grasp.

 

Hmm.. it seems that Magneto gave AlphaNumeric the discussion he ASKED for and Magneto was shown to be wrong - not to mention condescending and abusive. AlphaNumeric clearly showed that Magneto was a fraud.

You, Farsight, sound like you too have been exposed, and you are just venting a little frustration here.

 

Boy, when are you going to get it right??

You left off a minus (-) sign.

\((ds)^{2} = \left( 1 - \frac{2M}{r} \right) (dt)^{2} - \left( 1 - \frac{2M}{r} \right)^{-1} (dr)^{2} - r^{2} d\Omega_{2}\)

Should I recommend a "First Year's" physics text for you to read?

 

You realize that by nitpicking on AlphaNumeric's sloppiness while going between equivalent sign conventions of the metric ( \(-(dt)^2 + (d \vec{x})^2\) vs. \((dt)^2 - (d \vec{x})^2\) ) is analogous to nitpicking on his spelling, and make no impact on his argument when he isn't the one claiming to have derived the result from first principles. The geometry of SO(3,1) is identical to SO(1,3) so both sign conventions are used and from exposure to the literature it is both clear what was meant and how his fingers could have made the mistake. (Good physicists often make sign mistakes in conversation, great physicists always make an even number of them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) That you now ignore what the word "derive" means, that you have no tensors or demonstration that your metric is a solution to GR let alone a unique one, all points to you working at a copy editor level when you claim to be capable of being a textbook author.

 

Hear hear.

And the only way he would end pleasantly is if you bent over and let him screw you in the bum...... Once you start a discussion like this with AN he becomes more savage than.. well I don't think I've seen anything this even in the wild..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The only way he's going to end this is with you laying still face down in the mud. He not only gives you the figures, he also likes to dish out pain, because, once we face the facts of the real world, it is clear that those are the means to an end.

This is true. I wish I had so much knowledge, even if I won't ever manipulate algebra so well.

Classic AlphaNumeric. He will start off by acting apalled. Then he will throw in a general, intangible jibe. Followed up by an insult which has little connection to the rest of the statement ... its almost mathematical

'No, you didn't..'
apalled
'Series of well known identities'
I seriously don't think these are well known at all
'I commented and you failed to respond'
intangible, general
'Simply ignoring criticisms'
intagible, general
'proclaiming ... dishonest'
intangible, general, insulting and hypocritical

But its all in one hat, at least.

At least he is honest.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your entire come back is a typo? As Rpenner has commented, I had to tell you about the sign structure of the metric after you claimed the Minkowski metric was Euclidean. I specifically mentioned the difference between SO(3,1) and SO(4). Clearly the fact I was out by a sign in one term was a typo, seeing as I've given the SC metric previously.

And what about your mistake about the \(dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2} \to dr^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2})\) transformation? Or the claim its not Euclidean? Or the fact you haven't given a derivation of the SC metric? Or that you gave a metric with no time components and then claimed it involved time, which JamesR corrected you on? Or your incorrect definition of fluxes? Or your misunderstanding about the difference between rank count and component count?

What about every single error I've pointed out in your claims in this thread? Rather than retort any of them you come out with "OMG you did a typo!!". The fact that's the best you can do shows you know you've been thoroughly debunked and beaten.

Besides, do you think no one would think "That's a typo, not an actual mistake". Do you really think no one would read other posts, where I go into the sign structure of the metric? Do you think I honestly don't know what the SC metric is? Your continued avoidance of questions I ask you, like why bother spewing stuff about hyper spheres, shows you know you can't answer them, you just can't be honest for once and admit it.

Do you really think your reply does anything more than convince people further that you're a hack?

Read the thread, I explicitly ask multiple questions which he doesn't answer. I retort claims he's made and ask for him to provide clear derivations if he disagrees, he doesn't. I give explicit corrections to things he says and he continues saying incorrect things. Hyper spheres, fluxes, (non)-Euclidean spaces, coordinate transformations, volume forms, line elements, metric signatures, tensor rank, tensor components, vector components, indices, integration, metric definitions. All of these are things which were 'discussed' and Magneto either didn't answer a question on or said something I responded to but which he then ignored. If you're going to jump in at the end of a thread and say I haven't been specific I can't help if it you're unwilling to read what has been thread. Magneto has been replying throughout, he knows all of those things have come up at some point. If you want me to specifically link to posts pertaining to certain ones of those areas I'll do so.

Magneto jumps on a typo while ignoring the fact basically every reply of his in this thread has had multiple mistakes exposed, none of which he's retorted.

I like how Farsight, you and Magneto are all commenting on me. Strange how the hacks are all friendly towards one another. No doubt you'd all disagree about whose pet theory is right, I just happen to disagree with all of you and unlike you I actually can put my maths where my mouth is. Sorry I don't sugar coat it but I doubt you'd listen any more even if I gave you a hug and a [sexual act] so I call it like I see it. Sorry if that breaks your self delusion but in the long run it'll be good for you.

 

Rpenner's comment about the 'University of Phoenix' got me interested in finding out more. Degree mills are something the UK has little problem with, though that isn't to say we don't have a fair few universities a drunk elephant could get into.

Having done a bit of reading around it would seem it is entirely possible that Magneto could indeed have spend decades as a university 'academic' and yet be the completely naive ignorant hack he has convinced us all he is. It would seem UoP is a terrible university, if 'university' can even be applied to it. It is not accreditted by a national accreditation organisation, it has only regional accreditation and, from what I can find, hasn't even applied for national accreditation. Odd, considering it has one of the largest enrolments in the country!

It is a private, for profit intuition entirely owned by a corporation, a concept which I find extremely odd, since that isn't how universities work here in the UK. Regular criticisms about cost cutting via reduced class times or large 'team sessions' occur, with criticisms about resultant reduced educations following as a result.

Though there's a 'Natural Sciences' faculty I can't find a physics group or maths group. It isn't accredited to give such degrees and it doesn't appear to offer even unaccredited ones. There are 9 week online courses in a few foundation level maths topics and a single one on physics but that is it. No department, no research being done, no impact on the theoretical physics community. As such even if Magneto were an employee there nothing and no one there would be in the slightest bit relevant to actual research beyond what you'd learn taking a few extra courses in high school.

If the comments I've read about UoP are valid (and there's such a profusion of them it seems likely) Magneto's just copying his employer in regards to writing a book, he's trying to sell people overpriced garbage by convincing them they'll learn something.

 

It's called being civil. One can agree to differ without resorting to abuse. Or at least, some of us can. You can't even follow your own ground rules.

 

Magneto_1 doesn't embrace civility, why does he have a right to it?

The following post extracts are just from this thread alone.

This last bit is isn't so much incivility but rather a contradiction of the author's raison d'être which creates the appearance of muddled motivations.

Oh, and by the way, SkyNet went live today. I need to upgrade my forum's terms of service with some real teeth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(Terminator)#Terminator:_The_Sarah_Connor_Chronicles

 

Maybe hes finally coming around to your point of view as to how physics should be done - with petty jibes.

We just don't like you. A fine ground for friendship. In some sense you are a community builder, AN

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think he has chosen exactly the right approach to a discussion with AN. I have taken this up as a test (of patience, mostly) before, in a thread, to be nothing but polite with him, and I received exactly the same treatment because my opinions and point of view differed.

Now, maybe I'm taking this forum too seriously, but I can't help it if I try to draw the right conclusions.

 

You mean to say that Magneto's intent is to come across as a screaming nutter with a penchant for the double exclamation mark?

 

I started nice but after a while Magneto demonstrated he wasn't going to follow the rules of answering direct questions, providing reputable references, giving proper derivations when asked and he started with the insults. Once it was clear he wasn't interested in the discussion initially laid out I stopped completely following them too.

Nothing I've corrected him on is altered by how nice or nasty I said it. He still made mistakes in regards to everything I listed to DRZ : Hyper spheres, fluxes, (non)-Euclidean spaces, coordinate transformations, volume forms, line elements, metric signatures, tensor rank, tensor components, vector components, indices, integration, metric definitions. And when I provided a step by step derivation of a result which proved him wrong he didn't say "Okay, turns out I was mistaken" he said "You're just trying to have the bigger stick" or "That's worth a comedy Nobel prize", before falling flat on his face again.

Do you think Magneto understands relativity? I suppose it is hard for you to evaluate the discussion since the mistakes he makes are often of a mathematical nature and thus beyond your ability to understand.

This isn't how physics is done. Physics and research in general is done in peer reviewed journals and conferences and labs. If Magneto had put his work through peer review I'd not have started this thread. After all I don't ask Ben or Prom to do this, I know that they have put their work through peer review at reputable journals. Instead Magneto skipped that and wrote a set of books he charges people money for.

Do you think that's an honest thing to do? Do you think Magneto understands general relativity to the degree he believes? Do you think he understands it at all? Do you think his work is worth paying for? Do you think its okay he's charging lay person's money for work he hasn't had checked for accuracy and which, when pressed, he can't defend and is full of errors?

Do you think Magneto is engaging in a good way to do science? I'm not attempting to 'do science' here. I know that this forum (and others like it) is your only contact with 'science' but you're making an equivocation fallacy if you think this is in any way 'doing science'. The stuff myself, Prom, Cpt, Guest etc do day to day is entirely different to the stuff discussed here and the way it is discussed. These forums are not peer review sites attempting to do proper science or people like yourself would be banned from posting, just as you're not allowed to upload work to ArXiv just because you have an email address.

Boo hoo. You don't like me because I don't help feed your delusions of being anything other than average (or very poor in fact). Farsight is desperate to be seen as a great physicist and won't talk to anyone who doesn't help feed that. Likewise you and Magneto want to believe you've got capabilities and understanding in physics you don't but not quite to the same degree as Farsight.

 

I addressed this here also.

My problem with your mathematical statement was that it did not appear that you were describing the correct frame of reference.


\(ds^{2} = dx_s^{2} + dy_s^{2} + dz_s^{2}\)

The above does not equal:

\(ds^{2} \Not= dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}\)

but is actually equal to

\(ds^{2} = dr^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin^{2}\theta \, d\phi^{2})\)

\(ds^{2} = dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2} + r^{2}(d\theta^{2} + \sin^{2}\theta \, d\phi^{2})\)

\(dx_s^{2} + dy_s^{2} + dz_s^{2} = dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2} + (x^{2} + y^{2} + z^{2})(d\theta^{2} + \sin^{2}\theta \, d\phi^{2})\)

You must have a short memory, and and must have forgotten that I did the Cartesian to spherical coordinates transformation!

I will give you this one as being correct, only because you use a lot of generalizations and shortcuts. So I do understand how you can make the math statement that you made in the post; I am a little more exacting, because I want a result that is closed solution that I can calculate and get a result; this type of result is not that important to you. And this is common with math people, not so much with physics people.

I already addressed this here, and here also.

If a sphere is very, very large then any observer on the surface will experience his world as flat. This is similar to the Surface of the Earth. The earth appears flat to us local humans, however the earth is completely an oblate spheroid. This is why Euclidean and Non-Euclidean explanations are sometimes confusing. If the sphere is small enough the sum of the angles for a triangle on the surface will be greater than 180 degrees and this is Non-Euclidean. If the sphere is very large then, Flat and Euclidean could be considered synonymous, and why a 2-Sphere could also be described by a 3-Sphere.

It is the fact that some call the Minkowski Space-time pseudo-Euclidean. Which I consider Euclidean for simple GR; however it can also be considered Non-Euclidean; the difference has to do with sign convention whether (\(dt^2\)) or (\(-dt^2\)).

Euclidean Description - See Generalizations