Thin Spherical Matter Shell as Gravity Theory Filter

[Q-reeus]

Have just uploaded a first-time article to viXra.org, having the above title:
http://vixra.org/abs/1407.0130
Hopefully some of you with an interest in things other than just Bell and the like will give it a careful check over and make any constructive thoughts known here. I make no pretense at being competent in GR, but then again will claim to (most of the time! ) think both clearly and outside the box. Decided to post in this section owing to the obviously controversial claims made in the article, but wouldn't protest it being moved to Relativity section.

[Mikko]

Have just uploaded a first-time article to viXra.org, having the above title:
http://vixra.org/abs/1407.0130
Hopefully some of you with an interest in things other than just Bell and the like will give it a careful check over and make any constructive thoughts known here. I make no pretense at being competent in GR, but then again will claim to (most of the time! ) think both clearly and outside the box. Decided to post in this section owing to the obviously controversial claims made in the article, but wouldn't protest it being moved to Relativity section.

Your "anomaly A" is that you do not like the coordinate system you have chosen in the equation 1-2. Use of direction coordinates, although not necessary, is reasonable as the situation is spherically symmetric. You have chosen to use Schwartzschild's radial coordinate, which is a popular choice but there are other reasonable choices. Anyway its your choice and has no physical consequeces. You are free to dislike your choices but then the soulution is simply to choose something else. Later you say that you don't like the isotropic coordinates, either. Anyway, the only inconsistency you show is between your choices and your preferences. Not very interesting, but perhaps useful for some who may have similar preferences. However, for that purpose the presentation should be different (in particular, the problem of choosing a coordinate system should be stated before discussion of the solution possibilities.

[Q-reeus]

Your "anomaly A" is that you do not like the coordinate system you have chosen in the equation 1-2. Use of direction coordinates, although not necessary, is reasonable as the situation is spherically symmetric. You have chosen to use Schwartzschild's radial coordinate, which is a popular choice but there are other reasonable choices. Anyway its your choice and has no physical consequeces. You are free to dislike your choices but then the soulution is simply to choose something else. Later you say that you don't like the isotropic coordinates, either. Anyway, the only inconsistency you show is between your choices and your preferences. Not very interesting, but perhaps useful for some who may have similar preferences. However, for that purpose the presentation should be different (in particular, the problem of choosing a coordinate system should be stated before discussion of the solution possibilities.

That imo GR party-line opinion piece may be entirely well meant, but just ignores that such reaction was anticipated and specifically addressed in the article. Let it be made clear that when asking for constructive feedback, what's expected is a sensible response that addresses in relevant detail the key issues raised. The two anomalies A and B arise when sticking with SM coordinate system. Either easily identifiable elementary conceptual or calculational errors were made in arriving at those anomalies - while working consistently within that SM basis - or not.
Feel free to provide an appropriately targeted and detailed critique. I note that subsequent to similarly challenging you for details here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=65#p3047
the response was silence. Still, one should try and maintain hope. And just like in that thread, will again invite constructive participation from others - respecting above points if doing so.
Just trying to inject some useful diversity here folks.

[Mikko]

Either easily identifiable elementary conceptual or calculational errors were made in arriving at those anomalies - while working consistently within that SM basis - or not.

Conceptual: you identify as an anomaly what is not.

[Q-reeus]

Conceptual: you identify as an anomaly what is not.

Best you can do - another bald assertion? This time less than half a line of text. And evidently no-one else game or interested enough to bite. Darn; methinks I have come to the wrong place - again.

[Mikko]

Darn; methinks I have come to the wrong place - again.

You could try sci.physics.relativity on this site or Usenet.

[Q-reeus]

You could try sci.physics.relativity on this site or Usenet.

Well with membership closed at 38 total (myself lucky to slip in last), very likely all members of the small 'family' here check over all subforums hence pointless to repost which in any case is probably against the rules. But I may check out some other Usenet forum. Have had bad experiences at a number of forums - one shut down by the owner in a fit of pique, another turned out to be a place for brawling and flaming. And the most prestigious site illegally life-banned me owing to one ladder-climbing prick disliking my showing up his mistakes.

[FrediFizzx]

Membership is not closed here. But automatic registration was turned off because too many spammers were trying to sign up. Anyone that wants to sign up needs to send an email to admin at sciphysicsforums dot com. Then we will turn registration back on.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=67

[Q-reeus]

Membership is not closed here. But automatic registration was turned off because too many spammers were trying to sign up. Anyone that wants to sign up needs to send an email to admin at sciphysicsforums dot com. Then we will turn registration back on.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=67

Good to have that cleared up and - Interesting.

[Q-reeus]

Just a formal notification for the record - revised version of article just uploaded to viXra.

[FrediFizzx]

Membership is not closed here. But automatic registration was turned off because too many spammers were trying to sign up. Anyone that wants to sign up needs to send an email to admin at sciphysicsforums dot com. Then we will turn registration back on.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=67

Good to have that cleared up and - Interesting.

The main problem is that the spammers use bogus email addresses when registering so the web hosting company is throttling emails to and from the site because too many invalid emails are being sent out automatically. I have to figure out how to modify phpbb to not send out registration emails automatically.

[Mikko]

Just a formal notification for the record - revised version of article just uploaded to viXra.

Still not clear enough. Perhaps you should explicitely compare to Minkowski space and demonstrate that your "anomaly" is present in your problem case but not in Minkowski space, although your interior region is (and any part of it) indistinguishable from a small region of Minkowski space. Otherwise it is hard to see what you are trying to say.

[Q-reeus]

Still not clear enough. Perhaps you should explicitely compare to Minkowski space and demonstrate that your "anomaly" is present in your problem case but not in Minkowski space, although your interior region is (and any part of it) indistinguishable from a small region of Minkowski space. Otherwise it is hard to see what you are trying to say.

This is a kind of nightmare for me - like being the hapless character in a Twilight Zone episode - where some kind of malevolent mind-fog descends on everyone said character interacts with. Most just sort of freeze and do nothing. One or two react but in the strangest of ways. Here's the article Introduction verbatim (unchanged in v2):

In GR (general relativity) a static thin solid and uniform spherical matter shell is the source of an external SM (Schwarzschild metric) and interior flat MM (Minkowski metric), plus a shell wall transitional metric not needing consideration here. It will be shown in part 1 the above implies a physically absurd disappearing dependence on gravitational potential for just the radial spatial metric component, in crossing the shell wall. In part 2 mathematical inconsistency is found. In the gravitationally small regime, treating each element of shell mass as an independent point source of SM and linearly summing over all such contributions ought to but manifestly does not yield an interior spatial metric consistent with the usual matching scheme of part 1. A conformally flat exterior metric as necessary cure is discussed in part 3.

What is not clear there exactly (you did for instance take note that interior Minkowski metric is explicitly assumed from the outset, right?)? What is not clear in the subsequent expansion on that Intro, in parts 1-4? Quite frankly it's your questions that are not making sense to me. I should be grateful that you, alone here, are at least reading and responding. Maybe if you home in with specific questions on specific parts in specific sections, progress can be made. General vague remarks just won't do it.

[gill1109]

Membership is not closed here. But automatic registration was turned off because too many spammers were trying to sign up. Anyone that wants to sign up needs to send an email to admin at sciphysicsforums dot com. Then we will turn registration back on.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=67

Good to have that cleared up and - Interesting.

The main problem is that the spammers use bogus email addresses when registering so the web hosting company is throttling emails to and from the site because too many invalid emails are being sent out automatically. I have to figure out how to modify phpbb to not send out registration emails automatically.

Very interesting. But is the result that admin at sciphysicsforums dot com is now being constantly spammed?

[gill1109]

Still not clear enough. Perhaps you should explicitely compare to Minkowski space and demonstrate that your "anomaly" is present in your problem case but not in Minkowski space, although your interior region is (and any part of it) indistinguishable from a small region of Minkowski space. Otherwise it is hard to see what you are trying to say.

This is a kind of nightmare for me - like being the hapless character in a Twilight Zone episode - where some kind of malevolent mind-fog descends on everyone said character interacts with. Most just sort of freeze and do nothing. One or two react but in the strangest of ways. Here's the article Introduction verbatim (unchanged in v2):

In GR (general relativity) a static thin solid and uniform spherical matter shell is the source of an external SM (Schwarzschild metric) and interior flat MM (Minkowski metric), plus a shell wall transitional metric not needing consideration here. It will be shown in part 1 the above implies a physically absurd disappearing dependence on gravitational potential for just the radial spatial metric component, in crossing the shell wall. In part 2 mathematical inconsistency is found. In the gravitationally small regime, treating each element of shell mass as an independent point source of SM and linearly summing over all such contributions ought to but manifestly does not yield an interior spatial metric consistent with the usual matching scheme of part 1. A conformally flat exterior metric as necessary cure is discussed in part 3.

What is not clear there exactly (you did for instance take note that interior Minkowski metric is explicitly assumed from the outset, right?)? What is not clear in the subsequent expansion on that Intro, in parts 1-4? Quite frankly it's your questions that are not making sense to me. I should be grateful that you, alone here, are at least reading and responding. Maybe if you home in with specific questions on specific parts in specific sections, progress can be made. General vague remarks just won't do it.

I would also appreciate it very much if Mikko could elaborate on his criticism. I am a total non-expert on relativity and have no idea what is SM (well, I thought I had an idea, but it was apparently wrong). It's really good some new topics are opening up on the forum.

Those who are experts could perhaps bear in mind that non-experts also want to learn from the exchanges here.

Mikko seems to be saying that Q-reeus' "anomalies" are only apparent anomalies connected to an unwise choice of coordinate system. So he is saying that expressed in another coordinate system, or expressed in a coordinate-free way, they no longer exist. Is this right? If so please show us how this would work out.

[Mikko]

I am a total non-expert on relativity and have no idea what is SM (well, I thought I had an idea, but it was apparently wrong).

There seems to be no expert here. Some experts occasionally post to Usenet's sci.physics.relativity, so posting there might get an answer from an expert (and a large number of other responses).

I understood "SM" as first used in this thread to mean 'Schwartzschild Metric as expressed in Schwartzschild coordinates', i.e.,
ds² = (1 - 2M/r)dt² - dr²/(1 - 2M/r) - r²(dθ² + sin²θ dφ²),
which is the solution of GR for vacuum around a spherically symmetric non-rotating body with no electric charge. When I used the abbreviation I meant
the same solution without any resriction of presentation. The soulution within the body is sometimes called "Swartzschild's interior solution" and then
the vacuum solution is called "Schwartzschild's exterior solution".

[Mikko]

What is not clear in the subsequent expansion on that Intro, in parts 1-4?

Why do you use words like "anomaly" and "inconsistency" instead or "counter-intuitive" and "surprise"?

In addtiton, I couldn't find the paragraph starting "We have found the following anomalies:" (or something like that) in Conclusions.

[Q-reeus]

There seems to be no expert here. Some experts occasionally post to Usenet's sci.physics.relativity, so posting there might get an answer from an expert (and a large number of other responses).

Ah so you meant another site, not the subforum here then.

I understood "SM" as first used in this thread to mean 'Schwartzschild Metric as expressed in Schwartzschild coordinates', i.e.,
ds² = (1 - 2M/r)dt² - dr²/(1 - 2M/r) - r²(dθ² + sin²θ dφ²),
which is the solution of GR for vacuum around a spherically symmetric non-rotating body with no electric charge. When I used the abbreviation I meant
the same solution without any resriction of presentation. The soulution within the body is sometimes called "Swartzschild's interior solution" and then
the vacuum solution is called "Schwartzschild's exterior solution".

Scenario is clearly given as relating to a hollow shell with vanishingly thin wall, so relevant 'Schwarzschild interior solution' is, as stated numerous times there, just flat spacetime Minkowski which *should* make it particularly easy to analyze. But that ignores the awful, here and elsewhere verified reality of TZ (Twilight Zone) effect. What else can explain the truly mind numbing utterly dumb-sh*t response exhibited despite best efforts trying an ABC summary here?: http://vixra.freeforums.org/thin-shell- ... -t320.html

[Q-reeus]

What is not clear in the subsequent expansion on that Intro, in parts 1-4?

Why do you use words like "anomaly" and "inconsistency" instead or "counter-intuitive" and "surprise"?

In addtiton, I couldn't find the paragraph starting "We have found the following anomalies:" (or something like that) in Conclusions.

Check out my ABC summary given in viXra forum thread linked to in last post. Something may click. Very maybe I fear. If you then still cannot figure what anomalies are referred to in either Conclusion or preceding sections, just forget it. TZ effect in full swing.

[Mikko]

http://vixra.freeforums.org/thin-shell-metric-matching-demands-conformal-flatness-t320.html

That message claims that "thin shell demands conformal flatness". Conformal flatness of the spatial geometry follows from spherical symmetry. Thin shell is not required nor does a thin shell of other shape suffice. In addition, only spatial metric is conformally flat, spacetime metric is not.