On Jan 1, 4:51*am, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 00:32:38 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse



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

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

Liar.

shrug

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

You never did check those previous two times, either.

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

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

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

Arrogant stupidity saves the day again.

Your "solution" is not a solution.

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

[Hammond]
* *It's obvious Kooby is a Hype since he's claiming
Birkhoff's Theorem is "wrong" when the entire field
confirmed it 75 years ago... and since it explains why a
pulsating star cannot emit gravitational waves it must have
sent another thousand LIGO physicists back to check it again
more recently.
* *You seemed to be convinced Kooby was simply making a
(radial) coordinate transformation and doesn't actually know
this can't affect the vanishing of R_uv... which sounds very
likely .... on the other hand I just guessed that his metric
probably didn't solve R_uv=0, even though he says it does.
* *His claim of an "infinite number of solutions" certainly
sounds like an infinite numbers of coordinate
transformations, on the other hand the URL you cite above
appears to show that Ricci isn't actually zero for his
metric as he claims. *Since he says it is, could this be a
programming glitch and actually you were right the first
time?

He's made the same stupid claim about a dozen different
representations of Schwarzschild. I got confused and thought he was
talking about a different one.

There is no reason to believe it is a programming glitch. The program
has a codebase that is rather old, and the computation is
straightforward.

* *I personally still suspect you're right about his
"solutions" being merely coordinate transformations and he
doesn't know it ...but...which explanation of "Koober's
Folly" do you think is right at this point?

They almost universally are coordinate transformations from
Schwarzschild. He hasn't even been clever enough to chain a few
transformations together to make something unintelligible but still
Schwarzschild.

The most likely explanation is he ****ed up when he tried to copy from
another source.

* *By the way, I'm not an expert on "Koobology", but as the
world's leading "PSYCHOPHYSICIST" I would diagnose Kooby as
what Wikipedia defines as a "putz".....e.g. "sham contempt
fueled by high levels of ironic wonder at the simple power
of ham fisted intimidation". *Unfortunately in this case he
has been neatly snared by Birkhoff!
=====================================
* * *HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* * * GOD=G_uv * (a folk song on mp3)
*http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================