🚀 go-pugleaf

You CANNOT have "center" centro-symmetry in GR gtr TiVity.!!
You CANNOT have "density" .. .. .. .. .. in GR gtr TiVity.!!
You CANNOT have "sphere"  .. .. .. .. .. in GR gtr TiVity.!!
You CANNOT have *OTHER THAN* a GR-POiNT, on ANY WORLDline.!!
You CANNOT have *OTHER THAN* a GR-POiNT ..with NO GR-mass.!!
[ This is BECAUSE GR-mass has NEVER BEEN related to, G_uv. ]
There CANNOT be *MATHEMATiCALLY* exhibited, *ANY* GR-mass.!!
GR-Tivity *POiNTs* CANNOT theoretically "compress" at all.!!
GR-Tivity *POiNTs* CANNOT theoretically HAVE ANY GR-RADii.!!
[ This is BECAUSE GR-mass has NEVER BEEN related to, G_uv. ]
[ This is BECAUSE GR-mass has NEVER BEEN related to, T_uv. ]
PROFOUNDLY, THERE CAN BE *NO* "spacetime curvature" in GR.!!
                                      brian a m stuckless
  >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Joe Fischer wrote:
> Tom Roberts    tjroberts@lucent.com wrote:
> >Clearly not true, as any given solid material will compress
> >at the center to a higher density for the larger sphere,
> >generating more than twice the surface gravity of the smaller.

> >This could only be true in a linear theory; GR is not linear.
> >Specifically, for large enough density the sphere will collapse
> >and have no surface at all!

>              The objective of this should be to see if surface
> gravity can be predicted for various spheres, based only
> on radius, and density, even in concentric spherical
> layers of various densities.

>                I see no reason to apply GR at this stage,
> but maybe insights into GR might reveal themselves.
> 
> Joe Fischer