Kruskal-Szekeres extension: counter-examples

[noblackhole]

The astrophysical magicians' standard method for conjuring up the black hole is the Kruskal-Szekeres "coordinates". This very recent paper makes a mockery of those "coordinates" by counter examples:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-20-01.PDF

The black hole is history.

 

[origin]

The black hole is history.

I'll bet you a Dr Pepper that you are wrong. :roll:

What a colossal waste of brain power.

 

[yevaud]

Yes, an article written by a failed PhD in a journal per-reviewed by average schmoes off the street. Article written by an individual who's purported alteration of Kerr's work was referred to by Kerr himself as "crap."

Good move, NBH. I am impressed.

 

[michaelmozina]

Yes, an article written by a failed PhD in a journal per-reviewed by average schmoes off the street. Article written by an individual who's purported alteration of Kerr's work was referred to by Kerr himself as "crap."

Good move, NBH. I am impressed.

It seems to me that his argument is well documented in terms of mathematics and therefore any falsification of his paper should also be mathematical in nature.

As I understand it, his "failed Phd" relates directly to the argument in question. He (like Einstein) evidently dares to question the validity of BH theory and therefore he wasn't granted a Phd. The "average schmoes off the street" comment was more superfluous "put down" as far as I can tell and has no merit as it relates to his mathematical arguments. As I understand his basic argument (key point) it can be condensed to this comment:

It is plainly evident that metric (1) changes its signature from (+; -; -; -) to (-; +; -; -) when 0 < r < 2m, despite the fact that metric (1) is supposed to be a generalization of Minkowski spacetime, described by (using c = 1),
ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2 - r^2(d@^2 + sin^2@ dw^2) (sorry, if I kludged anything in the translation from PDF)

0 <_ r < infinity;

which has fixed signature (+; -; -; -); and so there is in fact no possibility for Minkowski spacetime to change signature
from (+; -; -; -) to (-; +; -; -) [5]. Consequently, 0<_ r < 2m on Eq. (1) has no counterpart in Minkowski spacetime. Nonetheless, although the astrophysical scientists deliberately fix the signature to (+; -; -; -) at the very outset of their derivation of Eq. (1) [1–9,11,12], in order to maintain the signature of Minkowski spacetime, they nonetheless allow a change of signature to occur in Eq. (1) to (-; +; -; -) [3,4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14] according to their assumption that 0 <_ r <1 applies to Eq. (1); in direct violation of their initial construction.

That does seem to be a problem. Is there a mathematical problem in his paper, or a logical failure in his argument that someone can actually point out?

Can someone cite the actual paper where Schwarzschild himself came up with this "solution" which is evidently credited to him? According to Crothers (In one of his paper that I've read), Schwarzchild went out his way to exclude the possibility of an infinite density (R=0) "solution", and this is not his solution. Is that true?

 

[SpeedFreek]

I just want to point out that this "very recent" paper is dated - January 2010. It is actually from the future!

I will keep out of this for now, as I haven't yet fully recovered from the prequel.

No Black Holes

(edited to correct link)

 

[MeteorWayne]

This belongs in the existing No Black Holes thread. It will shortly be merged there.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I just want to point out that this "very recent" paper is dated - January 2010. It is actually from the future!

I guess the "peer" reviewers get advanced copy

 

[SpeedFreek]

Can someone cite the actual paper where Schwarzschild himself came up with this "solution" which is evidently credited to him? According to Crothers (In one of his paper that I've read), Schwarzchild went out his way to exclude the possibility of an infinite density (R=0) "solution", and this is not his solution. Is that true?

It is credited to Schwarzschild as he was the one that found the analytical form, but he did not know that one may choose the coordinates freely, nor that the singularity at r - 2M is not a true singularity at all but is simply a coordinate singularity.

At least, that's what Gerard t'Hooft thinks, but Crothers has some rather unseemly names for t'Hooft.

See http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/lectures/genrel.pdf page 48, footnote (8)

 

[ramparts]

First off, I have no idea what the history with Schwarzschild's paper is, except that he came up with the solution that bears his name (for a spherically symmetric vacuum) and unfortunately died shortly thereafter. Whether or not he believed in black holes is irrelevant. The solution bears his name, he played a significant role in its discovery, and the mathematics should speak alone, without worrying about the opinions of the scientists behind it.

That said: there are some issues with Crothers' analysis.

1. His alternate metric (eqn 3) does indeed satisfy the requirements for a spherically symmetric vacuum solution; however, it's pretty clear that it doesn't have the right form in the weak-field limit, where it we should see the gravitational potential. Not a problem though - it's also pretty easy to see that with a simple change of coordinates (which is always valid in GR), r->2m-r, his metric reduces to the Schwarzschild case, so they're equivalent, with this redefinition of r. Crothers seems to not like coordinate changes, even though they're perfectly valid (the laws of physics should be the same in any coordinate system) and a very common trick in modern physics. There are two advantages to the standard Schwarzschild definition of radius over Crothers' counter-example: first, you can check for yourself that the Schwarzschild radius lets us use the usual formula for the area of a two-sphere defined at constant t and r (A=4pi r^2). There is no "right" definition of the radial coordinate, but that's one that makes a whole lot of sense. Second, as I mentioned before, it allows us to very easily compare to the metric in the weak-field limit, which is, of course, where we get that the constant of integration is equal to 2M. So really, all he's doing in his counterexamples is playing around with different definitions of r. Good on him.

2. There's no problem with the switch of metric signature inside the Schwarzschild radius - as long as the manifold is locally Minkowski (that is, you can find coordinates at each point for which the metric looks Minkowski), you're fine. Since there's still one plus sign and three minuses, it's pretty clear that's going to hold inside the Schwarzschild radius without too much work.

I find it amusing that Mr. Crothers' ideas are posted in disreputable journals and on forums like SDC where very few people can actually understand the relevant arguments, rather than put to scientists. I wonder what Mr. Crothers and his acolytes have to gain from this interesting PR scheme?

 

[noblackhole]

ramparts says"First off, I have no idea what the history with Schwarzschild's paper is, except that he came up with the solution that bears his name (for a spherically symmetric vacuum) and unfortunately died shortly thereafter. Whether or not he believed in black holes is irrelevant. The solution bears his name, he played a significant role in its discovery, and the mathematics should speak alone, without worrying about the opinions of the scientists behind it."

Ignorance is bliss!

ramparts says
"That said: there are some issues with Crothers' analysis.

1. His alternate metric (eqn 3) does indeed satisfy the requirements for a spherically symmetric vacuum solution; however, it's pretty clear that it doesn't have the right form in the weak-field limit, where it we should see the gravitational potential. Not a problem though - it's also pretty easy to see that with a simple change of coordinates (which is always valid in GR), r->2m-r, his metric reduces to the Schwarzschild case, so they're equivalent, with this redefinition of r. Crothers seems to not like coordinate changes, even though they're perfectly valid (the laws of physics should be the same in any coordinate system) and a very common trick in modern physics. There are two advantages to the standard Schwarzschild definition of radius over Crothers' counter-example: first, you can check for yourself that the Schwarzschild radius lets us use the usual formula for the area of a two-sphere defined at constant t and r (A=4pi r^2). There is no "right" definition of the radial coordinate, but that's one that makes a whole lot of sense. Second, as I mentioned before, it allows us to very easily compare to the metric in the weak-field limit, which is, of course, where we get that the constant of integration is equal to 2M. So really, all he's doing in his counterexamples is playing around with different definitions of r. Good on him."

You have not understood the paper. You can't use Newtonian two-body relations in what is alleged to be a one-body problem (but which is in fact a no-body problem). Newton's two-body related expression for escape velocity appears in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution". The counter-examples satisfy the fundamental requirements of a required solution and the removal of the "event horizons" by the Kruskal-Szekeres method emulates the astrophysical magicians. There is no a priori reason to choose any of the metrics adduced, including the so-called "Schwarzschild solution", which is not Schwarzschjild's solution at all - Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes. The quantity 'r' appearing in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is not even a distance let alone a radial one in the associated manifold, and so it is the "radius" of nothing in the associated manifold. The so-called "Schwarzschild solution" suffers from the same defects in analysis as the counter-examples amplify. Also, there is a "right" definition of radial distance - in the case of the "Schwarzschild solution" the radial geodesic distance is given by the integral of the square root of the negative of the term containing the differential dr, and the result is not r. The quantity r in the "Schwarzschild solution" is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section, and thereby is not a distance let alone a radial one in the associated manifold. The so-called "areal radius" from A = 4 pi r^2 is platitudinous drivel, and does not rightly give the geometric identity of the quantity r in the "Schwarzschild solution".

ramparts says
"2. There's no problem with the switch of metric signature inside the Schwarzschild radius - as long as the manifold is locally Minkowski (that is, you can find coordinates at each point for which the metric looks Minkowski), you're fine. Since there's still one plus sign and three minuses, it's pretty clear that's going to hold inside the Schwarzschild radius without too much work."

There is a major problem with the switch of signature. First, it is fixed to (+,-,-,-) at the outset to maintain the signature of Minkowski spacetime and so you can't arbitrarily allow it to change to (-,+,-,-) at the end. Second, Minkowski spacetime has no counterpart to (-,+,-,-) and so (-,+,-,-) is unrelated to the problem. Third, the change of signature to (-,+,-,-) cause the quantities t and r to exchange their roles, so that t becomes spacelike and r becomes timelike. Hence, the change to (-,+,-,-) makes all the components of the metric tensor functions of the now timelike quantity r, making the metric timelike, in direction violation of the required static condition at the outset - i.e. it produces a non-static solution to a static problem!

ramparts says
"I find it amusing that Mr. Crothers' ideas are posted in disreputable journals and on forums like SDC where very few people can actually understand the relevant arguments, rather than put to scientists. I wonder what Mr. Crothers and his acolytes have to gain from this interesting PR scheme?"

Ridiculing the writer is not a scientific argument. It is rather amusing to see that most here attack the writer on grounds that are themselves false. Crothers is not a failed PhD - he was not allowed to even submit his thesis because his work questioned the favoured theory. The whole affair, including the exchange with Kerr, is reported by Crothers on his website. He withholds nothing.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html

People on forums such as this don't need the authority of "scientists" to determine what is what. With all the facts before them they can decide for themselves. Your implication that people here can't understand the straightforward arguments is arrogant claptrap.

Also, although the paper is dated 2010, that is for the scheduled hardcopy. It has however been published online (obviously). The journal in which it is published has no bearing on the science. Resorting to ridicule of the publisher is not a scientific argument either.

The black hole is history!

 

[MeteorWayne]

First of all it is relevant that Mr Crothers is one of the editors of the only journal he can get published in.

And second of all, the black hole may be history, but so is this thread. It will be merged with the existing no black hole one.

 

[yevaud]

It seems to me that his argument is well documented in terms of mathematics and therefore any falsification of his paper should also be mathematical in nature.

Pardon me, but isn't that precisely what the Doctoral Review panel and your Dissertation Advisor do?

Apparently you do not know Academia. Mister Crothers earned what is known in the field as a "Terminal Masters." It means he failed to produce a solid original work, and that was the finding of the review panel. That's how it works. His rise through the ranks of this field terminates at a Masters, thanks, hearty handshakes all around, have a nice life. Seeya.

Constant repetition of one's failed Dissertation does not magically make it suddenly correct. I, for one, have limited patience in these matter; it was a condemnation of Crothers flogging the same, dead failed idea to death. Nor am I impressed at Progress in Physics/Stephen J. Crothers constant claims of conspiracies and dirty-dealings as the reason their fringe theories are not accepted.

And finally, PIP does not openly state it's purported "peer-review" process, nor whom does the review, but it seems quite likely it is done by the people who run PIP - of whom one is Stephen J. Crothers. So he did what? Peer-reviewed his own fallacious paper and find it good?

 

[ramparts]

You have not understood the paper. You can't use Newtonian two-body relations in what is alleged to be a one-body problem (but which is in fact a no-body problem). Newton's two-body related expression for escape velocity appears in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution".

Wow, I'm getting déjà vu... as if we had this exact same conversation two months ago...

I'm not talking about the escape velocity formula. I'm talking about the Newtonian gravitational potential, which is a property of a single body. This is basic physics - the potential is given by GM/R, where M is the mass of the gravitating body. It tells you what the force would be if you were to put a particle of mass m in the gravitational field (multiply by m). But the potential itself is defined as a property of a single body - and that makes sense, every mass should feel the same gravitational field, no?

The counter-examples satisfy the fundamental requirements of a required solution and the removal of the "event horizons" by the Kruskal-Szekeres method emulates the astrophysical magicians. There is no a priori reason to choose any of the metrics adduced, including the so-called "Schwarzschild solution", which is not Schwarzschjild's solution at all - Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes. The quantity 'r' appearing in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is not even a distance let alone a radial one in the associated manifold, and so it is the "radius" of nothing in the associated manifold. The so-called "Schwarzschild solution" suffers from the same defects in analysis as the counter-examples amplify. Also, there is a "right" definition of radial distance - in the case of the "Schwarzschild solution" the radial geodesic distance is given by the integral of the square root of the negative of the term containing the differential dr, and the result is not r. The quantity r in the "Schwarzschild solution" is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section, and thereby is not a distance let alone a radial one in the associated manifold. The so-called "areal radius" from A = 4 pi r^2 is platitudinous drivel, and does not rightly give the geometric identity of the quantity r in the "Schwarzschild solution".

Platitudinous drivel! My lord, we're using big words now, aren't we? You just ignore my claim that defining r so that we recover the formula for area until the very end, when you dismiss it offhand. I'd be curious about an explanation as to why there is a "real" r, and how you define it. Wouldn't the "real" definition of r have to be the areal radius as well? Otherwise the surface area of a sphere at radius r would not be 4 pi r^2, and that would just be weird.

There is a major problem with the switch of signature. First, it is fixed to (+,-,-,-) at the outset to maintain the signature of Minkowski spacetime and so you can't arbitrarily allow it to change to (-,+,-,-) at the end.

Really? Why not?

Second, Minkowski spacetime has no counterpart to (-,+,-,-) and so (-,+,-,-) is unrelated to the problem.

Sure there is - as you suggest in a bit, just switch the definitions of r and t. These things are just coordinates, you can define them however you like - the point is that there exist coordinates (in this case, switching r and t) such that the spacetime inside the event horizon is locally Minkowski.

Third, the change of signature to (-,+,-,-) cause the quantities t and r to exchange their roles, so that t becomes spacelike and r becomes timelike. Hence, the change to (-,+,-,-) makes all the components of the metric tensor functions of the now timelike quantity r, making the metric timelike, in direction violation of the required static condition at the outset - i.e. it produces a non-static solution to a static problem!

That's more or less what I just said, I think.

That said, you raise an interesting point - the Schwarzschild solution is stationary with respect to t, but t becomes spacelike inside the horizon. I'll have to give that some thought. The one thing I will say is that the metric isn't supposed to lack dependence on the timelike variable, it's supposed to lack dependence on t. Hmm, interesting point though.

People on forums such as this don't need the authority of "scientists" to determine what is what. With all the facts before them they can decide for themselves. Your implication that people here can't understand the straightforward arguments is arrogant claptrap.

I know. Show people math they don't know and use jargon with which they're unfamiliar, and expect them to make a well-informed decision. Easy.

Noblackholes, I asked you this question in our last "discussion" and I don't think you ever answered it: why do you and Crothers seem to think that there's some big conspiracy of astrophysicists? Whatever do they have to gain from playing such tricks on science, especially when such easy answers apparently exist?

 

[noblackhole]

It seems to me that his argument is well documented in terms of mathematics and therefore any falsification of his paper should also be mathematical in nature.

Pardon me, but isn't that precisely what the Doctoral Review panel and your Dissertation Advisor do?

Apparently you do not know Academia. Mister Crothers earned what is known in the field as a "Terminal Masters." It means he failed to produce a solid original work, and that was the finding of the review panel. That's how it works. His rise through the ranks of this field terminates at a Masters, thanks, hearty handshakes all around, have a nice life. Seeya.

Constant repetition of one's failed Dissertation does not magically make it suddenly correct. I, for one, have limited patience in these matter; it was a condemnation of Crothers flogging the same, dead failed idea to death. Nor am I impressed at Progress in Physics/Stephen J. Crothers constant claims of conspiracies and dirty-dealings as the reason their fringe theories are not accepted.

You've told a whopper here. Crothers did not get a "terminal masters" at all. He was prevented from submitting his doctoral thesis. One professor Chris Hamer altered his work and then based upon that alteration claimed that Crothers was wrong and so he and his mates then deliberately blocked Crothers' thesis. All this is reported in full with supporting documents on Crothers website:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html

Your relentless invective and ridicule of Crothers is not a scientific argument no matter how often and how vicious you make it. If you can't or won't address the scientific arguments instead of attacking the author and lying about his circumstances, find something else to do, because you won't make it is science.

The black hole is history.

 

[ramparts]

I don't know, noblackholes, you can't or won't address my scientific argument, right above your post

 

[noblackhole]

"I'm not talking about the escape velocity formula. I'm talking about the Newtonian gravitational potential, which is a property of a single body. This is basic physics - the potential is given by GM/R, where M is the mass of the gravitating body. It tells you what the force would be if you were to put a particle of mass m in the gravitational field (multiply by m). But the potential itself is defined as a property of a single body - and that makes sense, every mass should feel the same gravitational field, no?"

The Newtonian potential is defined as the work done per unit mass against the gravitational field. Newton's gravitational field involves the a priori interaction of two masses. Your claim that you are not talking about escape velocity is specious. The Newtonian escape velocity expression appears in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" whether you like it or not, as Crothers amplifies in his latest paper. Escape velocity involves two bodies: one body escapes from another body. But this is a concept that is impossible in a spacetime that is alleged to be a one-body problem (the "Schwarzschild solution"). Furthermore, "Schwarzschild's solution" is NOT Schwarzschild's solution at all. Schwarzschild's actual solution does not contain Newtonian relations and contains only one singularity and so it forbids black holes. Here is Schwarzschild's paper:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf

ramparts "Platitudinous drivel! My lord, we're using big words now, aren't we? You just ignore my claim that defining r so that we recover the formula for area until the very end, when you dismiss it offhand. I'd be curious about an explanation as to why there is a "real" r, and how you define it. Wouldn't the "real" definition of r have to be the areal radius as well? Otherwise the surface area of a sphere at radius r would not be 4 pi r^2, and that would just be weird."

It is platitudinous drivel. It is irrefutable that the quantity 'r' in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section. The area relation follows from this, but does not yield the geometric identity of 'r' in the metric. Gaussian curvature is intrinsic to a surface. It is clear that you don;t understand the geometry. Here is a full explanation, from first principles:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF

And here is the relevant calculation using the Riemann tensor of the 1st kind:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-11.PDF

Crothers: Second, Minkowski spacetime has no counterpart to (-,+,-,-) and so (-,+,-,-) is unrelated to the problem.

ramparts "Sure there is - as you suggest in a bit, just switch the definitions of r and t. These things are just coordinates, you can define them however you like - the point is that there exist coordinates (in this case, switching r and t) such that the spacetime inside the event horizon is locally Minkowski."

Nonsense. The spatial section of Minkowski spacetime is a positive-definite quadratic form (ordinary Euclidean 3-space). The coordinates r, theta and phi are spacelike and must remain spacelike. Minkowski spacetime, written with signature (+,-,-,-) can't change signature to (-,+,-,-). Minkowski spacetime written with signature (+,+,+,-) can't change to (+,+,-,+). The derivation of the so-called "Schwarzschild's solution" reflects this fixed signature by construction, but the astrophysical magicians violate their own initial construction and allow the signature to change from (+,-,-,-) to (-,+,-,-), making r the timelike quantity and t the spacelike quantity, in which case all the components of the metric tensor are functions of the timelike quantity r, giving a non-static solution to a static problem. Marvelous!

Crothers: Third, the change of signature to (-,+,-,-) cause the quantities t and r to exchange their roles, so that t becomes spacelike and r becomes timelike. Hence, the change to (-,+,-,-) makes all the components of the metric tensor functions of the now timelike quantity r, making the metric timelike, in direction violation of the required static condition at the outset - i.e. it produces a non-static solution to a static problem!

ramparts: "That's more or less what I just said, I think."

No it isn't.

ramparts: "That said, you raise an interesting point - the Schwarzschild solution is stationary with respect to t, but t becomes spacelike inside the horizon. I'll have to give that some thought. The one thing I will say is that the metric isn't supposed to lack dependence on the timelike variable, it's supposed to lack dependence on t. Hmm, interesting point though."

What? The solution is supposed to be static - in other words all the components of the metric tensor must be functions of a spacelike quantity, NOT of a timelike quantity: otherwise it is not a static solution. In the so-called "Schwarzschild solution r is spacelike and t timelike. But for 0 <= r < 2m, r becomes timelike and t becomes spacelike. The metric is no longer static. It does not matter what label you use of the spacelike and timelike quantities, what is important is what the components of the metric tensor are. For a static solution all the components of the metric tensor must be functions of a spacelike quantity, NOT a timelike quantity.

 

[ramparts]

The Newtonian potential is defined as the work done per unit mass against the gravitational field. Newton's gravitational field involves the a priori interaction of two masses. Your claim that you are not talking about escape velocity is specious. The Newtonian escape velocity expression appears in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" whether you like it or not, as Crothers amplifies in his latest paper. Escape velocity involves two bodies: one body escapes from another body. But this is a concept that is impossible in a spacetime that is alleged to be a one-body problem (the "Schwarzschild solution"). Furthermore, "Schwarzschild's solution" is NOT Schwarzschild's solution at all. Schwarzschild's actual solution does not contain Newtonian relations and contains only one singularity and so it forbids black holes. Here is Schwarzschild's paper:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf

It's true that an expression of the same form as the escape velocity appears in the Schwarzschild solution, but it's also of the same form as the gravitational potential. If you read up a standard derivation of the solution, the reason that term appears isn't because it's the escape velocity - it's because it's the gravitational potential. Noblackholes, this is simple GR and if you don't understand this, I recommend you study some more. The rr component of a metric in the weak-field limit is 1-2phi, where phi is the weak field potential. In the Schwarzschild case, that of course is the gravitational potential around a point source.

As for it not being Schwarzschild's solution, who cares? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Sometimes things do get named for people who didn't discover them - in fact, that's very common in physics. But the solution exists, a derivation of it is very easy to find in any standard GR textbook, and saying "that's not what Schwarzschild said!" is certainly not a scientific argument against the solution.

It is platitudinous drivel. It is irrefutable that the quantity 'r' in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section. The area relation follows from this, but does not yield the geometric identity of 'r' in the metric. Gaussian curvature is intrinsic to a surface. It is clear that you don;t understand the geometry. Here is a full explanation, from first principles:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF

And here is the relevant calculation using the Riemann tensor of the 1st kind:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-11.PDF

Wait, so you have a definition of r, I have a definition of r, and you claim these are different, but for both of them, the surface area of a sphere at constant t and r is 4 pi r^3. How does that make sense?

Crothers: Second, Minkowski spacetime has no counterpart to (-,+,-,-) and so (-,+,-,-) is unrelated to the problem.

ramparts "Sure there is - as you suggest in a bit, just switch the definitions of r and t. These things are just coordinates, you can define them however you like - the point is that there exist coordinates (in this case, switching r and t) such that the spacetime inside the event horizon is locally Minkowski."

Nonsense. The spatial section of Minkowski spacetime is a positive-definite quadratic form (ordinary Euclidean 3-space). The coordinates r, theta and phi are spacelike and must remain spacelike.

Why is that? It's pretty standard in GR to just see these things as coordinates, and I'm unaware of any a priori reason to exclude them from becoming spacelike or timelike.

Minkowski spacetime, written with signature (+,-,-,-) can't change signature to (-,+,-,-). Minkowski spacetime written with signature (+,+,+,-) can't change to (+,+,-,+). The derivation of the so-called "Schwarzschild's solution" reflects this fixed signature by construction, but the astrophysical magicians violate their own initial construction and allow the signature to change from (+,-,-,-) to (-,+,-,-), making r the timelike quantity and t the spacelike quantity, in which case all the components of the metric tensor are functions of the timelike quantity r, giving a non-static solution to a static problem. Marvelous!

"Astrophysical magicians." You still have yet to explain why you believe in this great conspiracy. As an undergraduate (going on to grad school) studying astrophysics, who certainly isn't engaged in some sort of conspiracy, and has no problem with the issues you deride, I am very confused as to why you perceive malice in the scientific community.

 

[yevaud]

"Astrophysical magicians." You still have yet to explain why you believe in this great conspiracy. As an undergraduate (going on to grad school) studying astrophysics, who certainly isn't engaged in some sort of conspiracy, and has no problem with the issues you deride, I am very confused as to why you perceive malice in the scientific community.

Ramparts, precisely. People better than we have already vetted Crother's work, and determined it fallacious. And note: all "evidence" that Crothers is correct, and all "evidence" he has been maligned all point back to...Crothers. That is neither independent, nor unbiased.

I'm sorry, NBH, but the experts have long since spoken as to the veracity of his work, and found it to be quite wanting. You can rail against that as much as you wish, which amounts really to a hill of beans.

Further, a "Mod Hat On" moment: do not continue down the line of accusing another member here of lying, or that is a fast-track to a long and potentially permanent vacation from this site.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Good day all. I just had to pop in to say "Hi", and couldn't help but see the same ol' topic arise from it's grave once more. I just had to be the one to respond to this quote:

People on forums such as this don't need the authority of "scientists" to determine what is what. With all the facts before them they can decide for themselves. Your implication that people here can't understand the straightforward arguments is arrogant claptrap.

I have never denied the fact that the physics to prove or disprove Crother's work is well above my current skill level. However I have read multiple sites where either our favorite celebrity noblackhole or Crother's has laid claims to the entire astronomical community pulling of some sort of conspiracy to make a mockery of Crother's work and to pull off whatever they can to hold onto the BH theory. Personally, with all the big fancy words being tossed around; my "term" for this whole ideology is hogwash. Noblackhole I have provided you many, many links to places whereas Crother's work could be re-reviewed, authorities in the RAS for such review, etc... Yet all in all Crother's is seemingly the only one who gives the big stamp of approval on his own work on Progress In Physics. Talk about your conspiracies *raises eyebrow*. I have never in all my years seen someone be able to give a unbias judgement on their own work. I know how much you love seeing me give my two cents on this subject Noblackhole given my lack of mathematical understanding of the physics. However it is like you said in the above statement, people like me on this site do not need the authority of "scientists" to determine what's what. Every single site I have seen you post this discussion on has given Crother's work a negitive review except oddly Progress In Physics. It is in your best interest and Crother's to go to people like RAS (plus numerous other organizations) and pronounce your claims with all the drivel you continuously post here instead of becoming boringly repetitious to this and other general audiences. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by continuing to argue with people over this topic or people like myself to debate with you. The only way your going to get any headway is to gather up everything you have and go debate it in a proper forum and again with the proper audience. Would it have given Einstein any headway in his efforts to say hold a public forum with general townsfolk and pronounce his mathematical formulas and idea's? *lol, because they obviously didn't have websites back and that's the closes relation I could think of.* No, he like many others pushed their idea's through the proper channels and never bored the heck out of those who it matters not to debate with. Your wasting your time, and the extra calist on your fingers isn't worth it. There is a time and a place for debating against current theories, and the level to which you want to take this debate is well above what this site is intended for. I think I've told you this before, but I will say it again. I'm not trying to upset you, or cause any further debate. However, it would be to your benefit to seek the right audience and the right organization that can properly debate with you, and have the authority to take what you present to the next level, if it were deemed worthy to do so.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Very well said, Raven.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Ty Wayne. It's true though. I have heard this hot debate over and over, and it cannot possibly make any further progress without being presented in a poper forum to the proper authority. I'm not sure what he plans on gaining by repeatedly bringing it up here. If he does as I suggest, and Crother's is proven right, then good on him... fantastic. But if he's wrong like so many have said for years, then it's their decission they made and he's wrong. There is a old saying that fits this topic really well when it comes to it being repeated on this site over and over again. It's "Leave laying dogs lie".

 

[michaelmozina]

Pardon me, but isn't that precisely what the Doctoral Review panel and your Dissertation Advisor do?

I'm sure that the process works beautifully in most cases. The one instance however where it would not work well is when the criticisms are not specific, and there is no agreement between the person writing the thesis and the individuals reviewing the material. In order for this to work correctly the criticisms *must be highly specific*, they must be clear, and they must be focused on the error in the material, not the individual.

I have a *great* deal of respect for you yevaud. IMO you're the single most scientifically "fair" individual I know of in cyberspace in 99.9999999% of all cases. For whatever reason, in this particular instance, I think you are a wee bit too fixated on the process of the individual, and too vague in your specific criticism of his work.

I'm very interested in this topic as you might imagine. I'm not certain at this point whether his work is valid or invalid. To be certain, I will have have to know the specific and exact place in his work where he makes a mistake, assuming there is one. I can't find it. That doesn't mean there isn't one, but I have to acknowledge at the moment that if there is a flaw in his work, I personally can't find it, and I can usually spot obvious errors.

Now I will freely admit that this material is mathematically beyond what I work with on a daily basis, and I'm not a professional astronomer. It is possible that I have overlooked something important. I'd really like to see someone find the error if there is one. It seems to me that ramparts responses appea to be more specific and IMO that's the kind of response that is necessary for this issue to be resolved. If there is an error, the author is only going to be able to see and acknowledge that error if they understand the exact nature of the specific error. Without a specific criticism however, nothing can be adequately resolved.

Apparently you do not know Academia.

I know that if one is proposing a 'non-standard' idea that there is typically a greater resistance to the idea than when one poses a standard theory in a thesis. I also know that Academia has a lot of highly qualified and very intelligent individuals who are fully capable of finding specific errors in specific papers. I have to believe that if the author of this paper has made a serious mistake in his work that someone can spot it, and someone can explain the exact nature of that error. I have a great deal of respect for Academia in that regard, and a great deal of respect for you personally in that regard. IMO that is exactly what is necessary here. I would urge you to take a step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and focus on the specific nature of his error. That type of highly specific criticism will convince me and IMO that is what will ultimately convince him of the error in the final analysis.

 

[michaelmozina]

Turning the other cheek....

I have a suggestion for you NBH.

I personally have a great deal of sympathy for, and a great deal of interest in your argument. I would suggest that you attempt to simply ignore the "emotional landmines" that are being placed before you by others. I know from experience that it is very hard to be on the receiving end of some of the personal (and IMO unfair) criticisms, and become "reactive" to that type of argument. A tit-for-tat response never seems to work very well in my experience, and believe me I've tried it.

In fairness to yevuad and this forum in general, space.com seems to be one of the more "open" and "fairly" moderated forums on the net. I don't know how you got under yevaud's skin, but it's not easy to do. I've managed that feat myself, but it wasn't easy. In my experience, your best bet is to politely ask him (and everyone else) to find the specific error in the work and ignore all the rest of the commentary. In my experience, he (they) will refocus his attention on the material.

Ramparts seems (from my vantage point) to be attempting to 'communicate" with you at the level of math, physics and science, but there's currently a lot of unnecessary posturing going on. I'm very interested in seeing that conversation develop, and I think it's in your best interest to develop it without reacting to the unnecessary stuff.

I know from experience that non mainstream ideas don't go over well with astronomers in general, but in my experience this particular astronomy forum is one of the few "honest" bastions of science in cyberspace. I think it's worth your time and effort and a little tongue biting on your part to see this conversation through, and to keep it as professional as is humanly possible given the circumstances.

There are some really good people here that will listen to a logical, rational and emotionless argument. If however you let the colorful commentary distract you, IMO it will work to your disadvantage. I know it's tough. I know it doesn't feel fair. I know it's not actually 100% fair, but hey, life isn't fair. It's still in your best interest to let the little stuff roll off your back and to keep everyone pointed back at finding the error in the material. Sooner or later things will calm down and things will go smoother. If you are emotionally reactive however, it probably won't go well.

Just my two cents...

 

[drwayne]

A couple of notes about the process of review in a dissertation that I am aware of. Clearly, YMMV
caveats apply as rules can and do differ from school to school and even over the course of time.
This is for background information.

(1) A topic for dissertation research, and the process for doing it is most frequently done prior to
work starting. While the project *should* be the candidate's own project, it is usually reviewed at the
start, and through it's process by at least the advisor, and sometimes a subset of one's dissertation
committee. The more cutting edge the work, the earlier and the heavier the involvement of the
review process. Committees don't like surprises at the end.

(2) In my experience, I have never seen a doctoral defense turned down for technical reasons
anywhere late in the process. I have seen projects get rescoped partway through (mine did),
But generally, if the project gets started, then it is felt that it has worth, and that there is
expertise and experience to review it properly.

(3) I have seen personal issues get involved in a dissertation. A student I knew well had a falling out
with his advisor, and bad things happened that nearly derailed his getting a degree. Cooler heads,
and the courts got involved and he got his degree. I know of another advisor who had a track record
of refusing to allow degrees to go forward because he liked the slave labor he was getting. It is
certainly a human process.

 

[ramparts]

Michael, bear in mind (I think you were saying something along these lines) that our willingness to engage amicably with NBH scales downward with each standoffish comment, each insinuation that there's a conspiracy of astrophysicists, and each time he refuses to engage in the same civil dialogue with which we try to engage him. Personally, I began this thread from a bit of a lower starting point because I'd already tried this with NBH a couple of months ago in another thread. After all the insults, insinuations, and three-post manifestos, when it came down to it, I asked him one question, several times, which was crucial to his argument, and he disappeared from the thread before he responded to it. So to be honest, I'm only expecting so much of a civil or productive dialogue.