- #141
PeterDonis
Mentor
- 47,046
- 23,450
Q-reeus said:From #1: "My contention is that if normal stresses truly are a source for gravitating mass m, it implies the following:"
Q-reeus said:And I have invited all the way along to be picked up on any specific point of error - note the word specific.
Yes, your *contention*. But it seems that nobody else in this thread can understand your specific arguments for that contention. That makes it hard to make specific criticisms. We have pointed out some specific items that look questionable, but that has not seemed to lead to a fruitful discussion.
Q-reeus said:OK use of Komar mass came up, but no attempt to put a finger on where in that expression things were going wrong or why, or to what degree.
Pervect addressed that in post #65; if you can find a timelike vector field that is "almost conserved", then you can use it to define the "redshift factor" in the Komar integral and that should make the integral "almost conserved" as well. He also made other suggestions.
I have also said several times now that in principle I have no problem with trying to look at "approximate conservation" of the Komar integral. And so far, every time I've worked an example, "approximate conservation" has appeared to hold reasonably well.
However:
Q-reeus said:Just 'can't use it - live with it - just accept BT is true - end of story'. Not terribly satisfactory imo.
Wanting a better understanding of whether and under what circumstances a particular approximation scheme might work is reasonable. Thinking that you will be able to find *any* approximation scheme that will justify results that contradict an exact, rigorous theorem about spherically symmetric spacetimes is not, imo, reasonable.
So if you had approached this issue by phrasing your question as "it seems like the Komar mass integral ought to be almost conserved in spacetimes that are almost stationary; can anyone give a more precise definition of how that works?", you might well have gotten some response. However, since you insisted on taking the position "GR is wrong, monopole GWs can exist, and I'll keep shouting that at the top of my lungs unless you can show me exactly how and why the Komar mass integral isn't conserved", people might quite reasonably think, "look, monopole GWs are ruled out by BT, regardless of how the Komar mass integral works, so what's the point?" And the result will be...pretty much what it has been in this thread.
Q-reeus said:Why is it so hard to put the finger on precisely where it fails?
Pervect made some good comments that may relate to this in post #65 as well.