- View Source
I now have 2 books.

Book # 1: Destiny Matrix will be out in early November. The cover is at

http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg

Book #2: Space-Time and Beyond – The Series: Episode 2: Dark Energy

Is on its way to the publisher now.

You can see it at http://stardrive.org/Jack/STBII.pdf 10 meg file.

It has contributions by Fred Alan Wolf and others including Lorna McLearie on Gary Zukav, several people on Ira Einhorn, my critiques of the physics of Bernie Haisch and Hal Puthoff in detail etc.

- View SourceSorry Hal but you are acting obtusely as anyone who reads what is actually

there can see.

First of all Ibison admitted to me that he is an amateur in general

relativity. His primary field is quantum mechanics under Basil Hiley at

Birkbeck if I am not mistaken?

Second, there is nothing I say that contradicts Ibison's math!

I have no quibble with his algebra on this very tiny detail.

Indeed, I use Ibison's nice little formula for your PV!

This is high school algebra that even a practical metric engineer should be

able to understand.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist.

Third, the more substantial issue is the informal one of interpretation of

r_c and r_I in general independent of detailed action for a given model i.e.

GR vs PV. This depends on manifold theory and global topology of manifold

which neither you nor Ibison know diddley squat about.

You are not free to make up your own rules on that like you do.

In this case, your attempt to replace curvature r by isotropic r as the true

measure of strong vs weak field is physically untenable and downright stupid

if you understand anything at all about Penrose diagrams.

First of all your common sense should tell you something is amiss if you get

a multiple set of isotropic r for a single curvature r.

Second, it's even more serious when your isotropic r become complex numbers

in precisely the "strong field" region used by Einstein in GR.

Now Einstein's GR has TWO isotropic r for one curvature r. These two

isotropic r are complex inside the event horizon for the SSS vacuum

solution.

This is indeed why the two isotropic r are two coordinate patches outside

the event horizon forming an Einstein-Rosen bridge or nontraversable

wormhole in the global topology of the manifold for Einstein's SSS vacuum

solution.

Now in your model using Ibison's nice little PV equation relating isotropic

r to curvature r you have in your PV an infinity of isotropic r for a single

curvature r. Like GR your infinity of isotropic r also go complex when

curvature r -> 0 in the traditional strong field limit. This should give you

pause, but it obviously doesn't.

Each isotropic r must be a coordinate patch and your non-analytic y = e^1/x

is the source of your pathological infinity, your excess mathematical

baggage of an infinity of isotropic r. Hence call your monster solution the

Medusa metric. This is an interesting example of pathological physics.

Hal you are simply not connecting the dots here. You have never addressed

this and neither has Ibison.

"Anything Goes" is a good musical but not a good approach to theoretical

physics.

Neither is "Create your own reality" in spite of Niels Bohr.

I repeat:

<< Now it's your turn. Answer his specific charge as to why his (Ibison's)

correction to your faulty critique is not correct and telling. >>

Ibison is an excellent theoretical physicist. You need to come up to his

standard and answer his correction.

Hal