|
Just for kicks, I did the same calculation for the metric dsē = (1/r^4)[ drē + rēdΩē ]. Following his approach exactly, I got δ'(r) = 1/rē-1, Int[ δ'(r) dr ] = C-(r+1/r), and therefore the "spatial deflection field increases without bound with distance." (If we massage the sign, anyway.) Therefore, as his approach leads us to the same place, all of his peculiar conclusions should follow for this metric as well. But in reality, the metric represents ordinary Euclidean space (just in unusual coordinates).
The entire "problem" is that that r-coordinate does not represent the proper radial length... but neither this r nor the Schwarzschild r were ever claimed to do so in the first place. This actually undercuts any meaning of this approach in the first place, as the numerical coordinate differences have no physical apart from the metric.
I honestly don't think T. Witt has even an undergraduate-level understanding of GTR. If he did, he would simply introduce a coordinate whose differences represent the proper radial length (as seen by a stationary observer at infinity), transform the Schwarzschild metric into those coordinates, and call it a day. None of this is conceptually difficult (although it is fairly ugly, with implicitly defined functions).
|