I looked at some of your Maxima code associated with "paper 93" out of
curiosity. It made me wonder if your bold statements about general
relativity are based, in part, on a piece of code that displays the message
"Einstein equation R^q=0 not fulfilled!".
I note that this message appears only if the code that displays R is also
executed (e.g., line %i10 in your Kerr.pdf worksheet.) That code, as a side
effect, factors R. The apparent failure of your R^q test is a consequence of
this factorization, and can be easily cured by either removing the
factorization, or by inserting a ratsimp in the R^q part of your code (%i47
in Kerr.pdf), as in
[...]
R_q:ratsimp(R[mu,sigma,nu,rho]+R[mu,rho,sigma,nu]+R[mu,nu,rho,sigma]),
if R_q#0 then
[...]
Generally, one must be very careful with claims based on the inability of a
CAS to simplify an expression or verify an equality. Not being able to show
that A=0 is not the same as proving that A is nonzero. In general, the
failure of a CAS to prove a theorem should not be taken as an indication
that the theorem is disproved.
Other than that, allow me to gently point out that responding to a request
for help with self-study on a CAS mailing list is probably not the most
appropriate way to promote a controversial theory.
Viktor
-----Original Message-----
From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu [mailto:maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu]
On Behalf Of dfeustel at mindspring.com
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:47 AM
To: Jaime Villate
Cc: Maxima List
Subject: Re: [Maxima] Please disregard
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:16:55PM +0100, Jaime Villate wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:27 -0500, dfeustel at mindspring.com wrote:
> > Check out aias.us for info on ECE theory which corrects some flaws in
> > general relativity.
>
> For someone who is starting to learn quantum mechanics, on his own, I
> would not recommend to jump right into a chemist's non-conventional
> approach that claims that what we physicists are teaching is all wrong.
Very specifically, Dr. Evans has used Maxima to show that the presence
of curvature implies that torsion must be non-zero. This invalidates all
those parts of general relativity that are based upon the assumption
that torsion = 0 . Note that all published metrics tested with Maxima
fail since they rely on a form of the Bianchi identity which assumes
torsion = 0.
Now there is a great opportunity to prove Dr. Evans incorrect by finding
an error either in the Maxima code used to demonstrate the existence of
torsion when curvature is present, or by finding an error in Maxima
itself which invalidates the Maxima code.
Note that Dr. Evans discovered the B(3) field and the existence of
torsion as a result of his work in non-linear optics, the observable
effects of which are inexplicable in MH theory. Why study a theory (GR)
known
to be incorrect when a better and simpler theory (ECE) is available? Note
that
work by Croca and others has demonstrated the falsity of the Heisenburg
uncertainty theory as well.
> In Richard's case, after following his posts about the quartic
> potential, I don't think that Myron Evans' books are a good reference
> to follow up his self study.
Should anyone choose to study Dr. Evans' work, start with volume 1 and
then jump directly to papers 93 and newer (available at aias.us)since
that is where Evans really dives into the effects of torsion not equal
to zero in General relativity (no black holes, no dark matter, no need
for gauge theory, no need for gravitational radiation, what really
causes redshift).
> I will think of some other references for him and will tell him in a
> private message later on. Regards, Jaime
>
_______________________________________________
Maxima mailing list
Maxima at math.utexas.edu
http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima