Hawking radiation

[paddoboy]

Once again Tashja, very nice. Prof. Robertson was generous with his comments and when placed in the context of Prof. Misner's full comment earlier provides a great deal of.., food for thought.

I echo those remarks, although still waiting myself for replies from Professor Will.

 

[paddoboy]

I would also like to hear from Schmelzer re Professor Robertson's reply.

 

[Schmelzer]

Sorry, but the arguments given by Robertson do not make sense for me.

The equivalence principle is not exact, because there is nonzero curvature in a gravitational field. If one requires zero curvature, this would mean the gravitational field is trivial, and there simply is no gravity.

 

[paddoboy]

Sorry, but the arguments given by Robertson do not make sense for me.

The equivalence principle is not exact, because there is nonzero curvature in a gravitational field. If one requires zero curvature, this would mean the gravitational field is trivial, and there simply is no gravity.

Thanks.

 

[OnlyMe]

Sorry, but the arguments given by Robertson do not make sense for me.

The equivalence principle is not exact, because there is nonzero curvature in a gravitational field. If one requires zero curvature, this would mean the gravitational field is trivial, and there simply is no gravity.

Schmelzer, first I know nothing of Yilmas gravity that has not been discussed here and it has been years since I, myself worked with EFE.

Still I am puzzled by your above comment. Quoting Prof. Robertson from tashja's post, it does not read to me that his comments rely on zero curvature as far as the equivalence principle is concerned. I quoted the whole paragraph, but the portion I placed in bold is where my confusion with your statement arises. The portion in red specifically refers to a static gravitational field not zero curvature.

I consider it to be an open question as to whether such field energy terms should be included and if so, whether Yilmaz has correctly formulated them. What is certain is that the current Einsteinian GR is only a first order theory and needs corrections in the right member of the field equations. This can be seen most simply by taking special relativity and the principle of equivalence as correspondence limits that must be satisfied by the metric coefficients. Then if one compares the gravitational redshift of photons moving within an accelerating frame to that of an inertial frame with an equivalent static gravitational field, one finds that the gravitational redshift must be an EXACT exponential function of the gravitational potential interval that was traversed by the photon. (I somewhere have this worked out in some notes and will find them and send them along later if you wish.)

Perhaps the notes he mentioned would be of some use.., or am I just missing something?

 

[Q-reeus]

Sorry, but the arguments given by Robertson do not make sense for me.

The equivalence principle is not exact, because there is nonzero curvature in a gravitational field. If one requires zero curvature, this would mean the gravitational field is trivial, and there simply is no gravity.

Is that a genuine response? You must know full well the EP is only ever meant to be a local statement - everyone who knows anything about gravity recognizes that globally the gravitational field of a body cannot be made equivalent to a *uniform* acceleration. In #398 I yet again gave the link to Alley ppt article which nicely sets out the derivation of exponential redshift expression. Feel free to 'pick it apart' and show how the usual GR redshift expression could be preferred on a logical as opposed to a successful PR campaign sociological basis. Prof. Robertson's statement is perfectly accurate and given in the proper context - correspondence *limit*. Obviously one expects opposition to such a death blow against Holy GR from its legion of devotees, but such should give the appearance of some sophistication.

Amusing and perhaps for you a warning sign that of all people here you get an 'I like' from paddoboy, plus a follow-up 'Thanks' posting!!!!

 

[paddoboy]

Amusing and perhaps for you a warning sign that of all people here you get an 'I like' from paddoboy, plus a follow-up 'Thanks' posting!!!!

You appear to want to invoke whatever conspiracies that support your agenda to muddy the waters. A couple of points...I asked Schmelzer to reply to the Professor's post simply for his view. Like his post? I mean with the cozy relationship between you and the god, I wouldn't be raising any aspect of me and Schmelzer over one like re a "theory" [Yilmaz], that irrespective of the Professor's opinion, is still barely creating a ripple over 20 years or more. :shrug:

 

[Q-reeus]

You appear to want to invoke whatever conspiracies that support your agenda to muddy the waters. A couple of points...I asked Schmelzer to reply to the Professor's post simply for his view. Like his post? I mean with the cozy relationship between you and the god, I wouldn't be raising any aspect of me and Schmelzer over one like re a "theory" [Yilmaz], that irrespective of the Professor's opinion, is still barely creating a ripple over 20 years or more. :shrug:

You asked Schmelzer?! Wow! The maxim rings true here - 'My enemy's enemy is my friend'. But are you still too proud to drop that long exposed as way-out '20 years' bit? My 'agenda' btw has always been truth regardless of popularity. You could do with adopting such 'agenda' yourself. Fat chance. I take it your stooping to asking help from someone you have poured out torrents of derision and invective on, is stark admission you have no personal capacity to challenge anything Prof. Robertson has claimed? No need to answer - the answer is obvious.

 

[paddoboy]

You asked Schmelzer?! Wow! The maxim rings true here - 'My enemies enemy is my friend'. But are you still too proud to drop that long exposed as way-out '20 years' bit? My 'agenda' btw has always been truth regardless of popularity. You could do with adopting such 'agenda' yourself. Fat chance. I take it your stooping to asking help from someone you have poured out torrents of derision and invective on, is stark admission you have no personal capacity to challenge anything Prof. Robertson has claimed. No need to answer - the answer is obvious.

Your agenda is obvious and as I have exposed in the past...grow up .