So, Crankdriver, you say that gravity is a reaction of metric to itself and to stress-energy tensor. Metric is a map, the tensor is the vectors or markers on that map. Are you telling the cat that gravity is map playing with itself with no territory needed to be present in the relation? Could you pass the cat some of what you are smoking there? The moggy would love a hit of that. You say Newt is too primitive for your gravitational tastes and that you derive such notions from Einstein's GR. Are you aware that Einstein himself held black holes to be a bunch of superstitious nonsense?
Inadequate, you are boring as usual. Keep your advice and insinuations to yourself and keep your nose down to the grindstone. That is, the subject. Defend the concept of black holes if you can, or if you cannot do that just keep quiet. Understood?
Whereas the concept of black holes is in no need of defense, you are apparently in need of medication. Once again I would urge you to consult a physician: show him the sort of things you've been posting on this forum lately, and see what he says. If you are sane, as you presumably believe, you will have lost nothing but half an hour's time. If, on the other hand, you are experiencing a psychotic break, as your increasingly fractured posting style seems to suggest, then this will be half-an-hour well spent, and I will have done you a service.
What are those mistakes in Einstein's paper that you allege here, Panda? I don't find any. He may have made some mistakes but that paper was not one of them to be sure. The gist of the paper is that division by zero is a grave error, infinities are but potentialities and not anything to do with anything physical and concrete and therefore singularities should be considered to be just a fancy mathematical construct. No mistake at all but only an outright rejection of all the bigbangist nonsense that the big bangers have the gall to attribute to the fellow innocent of that type of idiocy.
Defend the concept of black holes if you can, or if you cannot do that just keep quiet. Understood?
Regarding your complaint that Dr. Adequate is off topic, one might note that your post haranguing Cavediver has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Apparently you are playing some kind of whack-a-mole game in which you beset your favorite physicist whenever he appears.
But let's take a look at the message you posted. In the interest of brevity and peace, I've snipped ALL of the gratuitous, graceless crap.
...you say that gravity is a reaction of metric to itself and to stress-energy tensor. Metric is a map, the tensor is the vectors or markers on that map.
Are you aware that Einstein himself held black holes to be a bunch of superstitious nonsense?
Einstein's opinion on black holes notwithstanding, Cavediver's statements about metric and the stress energy tensor are statements with which Einstein would have been in complete agreement. Which makes your remark rather silly.
As for black holes, they are predicted by Einstein's theory and we have evidence that they exist. But I'm wondering about a post in which you invoke Einstein as an expert in your attempt to ridicule a poster and then then ridicule Einsteinian ideas all a few sentences later.
Here is a link to the paper AM mentioned.
"On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses"
The record concerning Einstein has to be put straight, that's all. Now both parties -bigbangists and anti-bigbangers - are guilty of mixing Einstein with all the nonsense other people patched upon the relativity theory. There is this chap, Stephen Crothers, who is one the best black hole and big bunk debunkers. Now from his, otherwise excellent papers, it could be mistakenly concluded that Einstein himself had a hand in concocting the concepts of light trapped by gravity and that of the big bunk singularity. I personally have sent him the 1939 paper in order to disabuse him of such an erroneous view.
That was exactly what Stephen Crothers quoted in conversation with me accusing Einstein of being as much a creationist as the Belgian chap. I had to explain to Stephen that even if Einstein had been impressed by the enthusiasm the Belgian was presenting his baby with may not mean that Albert himself would subscribe to the creationist primeval egg idea. No need to mix science and poetry. Einstein liked Edgar Poe poem in prose on the same subject too. That does not mean he ascribed to the poem any validity as a basis for a physics hypothesis or that he rushed to rewrite his own cosmology upon reading it.