dlzc wrote on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:43:08 -0800:

Dear Juan R. González-�lvarez:

On Feb 19, 9:26Â*am, "Juan R." González-Ã�lvarez
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:28:02 -0600:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
On the thread about gravity at molecular level, on
sci.physics.research
Tom Roberts did some
comments on Uncle Al post. Uncle Al reply has been

"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
Cannot agree more!

Apparently you missed the fact that Uncle Al did not answer the
question (he responded with an incoherent spew of jargon
indistinguishable from nonsense).

Insults from Uncle Al are of no account.

What insults on the extract i reproduced? Ignorance is not an insult
just a mind state.

You took a quote out of context.

Out of context?

The phrase was complete, includes a final "." and i said exactly from
*where* i got it. Therefore anyone (including they two) could add
something more in the case i had missed words (I did not).

You made a post directly aimed at both
Tom Roberts and Uncle Al.

And?

Reason which i reproduced Uncle Al quote here was because it very much
define many posting by Tom Roberts.

Instead wasting time replying Tom Roberts postings here and in
sci.physics.research i would just say

"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."

The ignorance is yours to cure.

See below.


Ignorance can be eliminated by injecting some knowledge.

Yes, please.

Below i make some technical questions Roberts never replied but you could
now!


Since you agree with him, perhaps YOU can answer the question I
asked. If not, that says far more about you than about me, and our
relative states of "ignorance".

I did a similar mistake in the past discussing with you both here and
in sci.physics.research newsgroup.

So you snipe and run, and never stand on whatever "facts" you fling in
people's faces?

But i usually follow point ((5)) of guidelines linked below now.

How nice. Follow your own philosophy now.

...
Of course, some of your post are also really good. I have nothing to
add to those also.

Yet you feel competent to lean towards one over the other? I think you
well and truly have walked into the wake between two mud wrestlers, and
will at least get soiled, and will most likely end up having difficulty
proceeding further. Uncle Al could not understand and answer the
challenge, but you seem to feel you can.

This should be fun to watch.

I also did the mistake of doing efforts to ask every time i was asked
whereas my many specific points regarding special and general relativity
are completely ignored. E.g. Roberts has never replied to me many
question i have done. The list may be huge but now i remember perfectly:

1) Explicit expression for non-geometrical "coordinate forces" [#] in
terms of gravitational potentials for the specific case of time-
orthogonal system of coordinates.

2) What experiments confirm geometric GR and invalidates non-geometrical
GR? some time ago Roberts tried to convince us that curved spacetime had
been measured...

3) Write the *full* relativistic N-body equation of motion for bodies
under gravity.

4) Equation of motion in field GR and differences with geometric GR. By
commodity works on weak fields.

5) Non-relativistic limit of GR geodesic. Or more easy geodesic equation
for linearized GR.

6) What is the 'speed' of gravity (and why?).

David A. Smith

In advance, thanks by all clever knowledge we will receive from you.


[#] This is usual name in literature, including that by celestial
mechanicists and astronomers. Therefore do not repeat the old mistake of
blaming about geometry...